fl_set_plugin_param

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

The annotation already marks the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true), so the description is not required to restate that. The description adds value by revealing that the operation is verified against FL's display string changing, implying an explicit post-write check. This is a behavioral trait not present in the annotations, so it earns credit.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Set one plug-in parameter') and immediately adds a meaningful verification detail. No wasted words, and it is as concise as possible.

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 description is minimal, but the schema is rich and handles parameter semantics, target selection, and safety guards. Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, two target addressing modes, concurrency guard), one might expect more usage context, but the schema compensates. Since an output schema exists, return value details are not required. Overall adequate but with some gaps in practical guidance.

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?

The input schema already describes all 8 parameters with full coverage, including detailed comments for target, legacy fields, expected_before, session_fingerprint, and normalized_value. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Set one plug-in parameter') on a resource, and adds a notable verification detail ('verified from FL's display string changing'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like fl_set_plugin_param_display or fl_set_plugin_param_option, so it narrowly misses 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fl_set_plugin_param_display or fl_set_plugin_param_option. The description lacks any condition or context that would help an agent decide between the set of similar parameter-setting tools.

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