fl_trigger_note

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

The description adds the useful context that the note is bounded (note-on/off) and that a receipt is returned, complementing annotations that mark it non-readonly and non-idempotent. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as audible playback, transport interaction, or whether any project state is changed beyond the audition.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though 'dispatch receipt' is slightly opaque and could have been clarified without much added length.

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 7 parameters and an output schema, the short description is acceptable but relies heavily on the schema and title for context. It does not explain the optional concurrency guards (expected_before, session_fingerprint) or why an agent would choose this over related channel tools.

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% and every parameter already has a meaningful description, so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Audition') and identifies the resource ('a global channel') and the action ('bounded note-on/off dispatch receipt'). It is clear enough to distinguish from the many fl_set_channel_* siblings, though 'dispatch receipt' is jargon that could confuse an agent.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It does not mention that this is for previewing a note without committing to pattern edits, which would be valuable among the large sibling set.

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