fl_set_channel_solo

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, setting the baseline. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'global' scope and the verification step on a later FL tick. This goes beyond the annotations by indicating the operation has an asynchronous verification aspect and affects the whole project. However, it does not mention potential side effects like exclusive solo behavior (unsoloing other channels) or the concurrency guard mechanics, which are partially in the schema. The description meaningfully supplements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. It avoids fluff and explicitly mentions verification. While it could be slightly more informative, it is appropriately sized for a straightforward set operation with verification.

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?

Given the presence of a comprehensive input schema (100% parameter descriptions) and an output schema (declared present), the description need not repeat structured details. It covers the primary action, scope, and verification. The description is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invoke it correctly, especially with the guards described in the schema. Missing details like why the guards exist are supplied by schema descriptions.

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%, with each parameter having clear descriptions (e.g., 'Absolute wanted solo state; never a toggle', 'Global channel index', and explanatory notes for guards). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 states the specific verb 'Set' with the resource 'global channel solo state' and adds the verification action 'verify it on a later FL tick'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like fl_set_mixer_solo by specifying 'channel' rather than mixer, and the global scope is explicit. The action is unambiguous and easy to differentiate.

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?

The description implies usage for setting channel solo state but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like fl_set_mixer_solo or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions under which this tool should be chosen over others. While the name and description make the primary use clear, the lack of explicit guidance on alternatives and exclusions leaves some gap.

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