fl_select_channel

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds 'exclusively' (implying replacing the current selection) and 'verify' (implying a confirmation step). It does not detail what state is destroyed or what the verification actually returns, but it does extend beyond the annotations.

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 description is one compact sentence with no wasted words; it says what it does in the first clause and adds an extra trait in the second. It is efficient, though nothing is grouped or front-loaded in a way that improves digestibility because it is too short to need it.

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?

The tool has only three parameters and no output schema, so the description carries more responsibilities. It does not objectively cover what 'verify' returns, what happens if the selection is not accepted, or how session_fingerprint and expected_before affect the result, although the schema already partially explains those parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description merely says 'global channel', echoing the schema's 'Global channel index,' and adds no extra meaning about expected_before or session_fingerprint.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Select') and resource ('one global channel') plus a distinguishing quality ('exclusively' and 'verify the complete selection'). It is clear enough to separate it from sibling tools like fl_select_mixer_track or fl_select_pattern, though it never explicitly names an alternative to differentiate against.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use the tool versus other selection tools, no conditions are mentioned, and no explicit 'when not to use' is given. The phrase 'exclusively' suggests the primary use, but an agent is left on its own to infer whether this tool is the right one rather than fl_select_mixer_track or a channel-toggle action.

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