fl_select_plugin_preset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds a behavioral detail beyond annotations by mentioning a post-navigation identity readback, but the phrase 'later-idle-tick identity readback' is unexplained and cryptic. There is no contradiction with the annotations, but the added context is minimal.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler words; it front-loads the core action. However, the second clause is dense and lacks explanation, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5 for ideal clarity.

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 a complex schema (8 parameters, nested target discriminator, multiple concurrency and fingerprint guards), but the description only gives a two-part imperative. An agent cannot infer how to correctly set expected_current, target_fingerprint, session_fingerprint, settle_tick_limit, or max_navigation_steps from this description. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing operational context.

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 the schema fully documents parameters like preset_name, preset_index, expected_current, and the fingerprint guards. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, and the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the burden.

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 names a verb ('Navigate') and a resource ('exact preset'), which is more than a tautology)Skip the vague phrase 'require later-idle-tick identity readback' obscures the core operation. It does not explicitly state that this selects a plugin preset, and the readback jargon makes the purpose partly opaque.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of siblings like plugins_list_presets, plugins_get_current_preset, or fl_get_plugin_preset_count. The description implies a selection operation but offers no context on prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool.

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