logic_plugins

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: set is 'Verified by re-reading the plugin's own readout', and a parameter whose band is off is enabled first when enable_band is true, otherwise it 'refuses rather than silently doing nothing' – an explicit failure-mode disclosure. It omits preconditions (which action requires an open editor window), required permissions, and reversibility, keeping it out of 5 territory.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The one-line scope statement is front-loaded, followed by a tight action-by-action list in terse fragments. Nearly every line earns its place; the only minor cost is that the tabular fragment style occasionally trades completeness for brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an eight-action, nine-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers most actions and the set failure path, but leaves the agent without preconditions, return/readout format, or the meaning of tolerance, on, and window. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully documents value formats ('+3 dB', '1.2 kHz', 2.0), the plugin name example ('Channel EQ'), the named parameter, and enable_band's behavior. However, 'tolerance', 'on', and 'window' are never explained, and 'track' is only implied by the insert sentence, leaving real gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence names the resource (plugin parameters, in real units) and the description then enumerates all eight actions (insert, describe, get, set, switch, preset, windows/close) with a concrete verb for each. An agent can tell exactly what each action does. It never names or distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (logic_level, logic_tracks, etc.), so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied through the action list: use describe to see every parameter, get for one value, set to drive a value, insert to add a plugin. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. must an editor window be open before get/set/switch?), and no routing against sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.