Apply a verified mixing plan to FL Studio projects, stopping at unverified steps to keep the process reliable.
Apply a plan once through the verified batch kernel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan_id | Yes | ||
| stop_on_unverified | No | Skip remaining plan items after unverified proof. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | ||
| batch | Yes | ||
| applied_at | Yes | ||
| schema_version | No | 1.0 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v10.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=falseholo. The description adds the 'once' constraint and 'verified batch kernel' mechanism, which is some behavioral context. However, it does not explain what gets modified, what 'verified' entails, or failure behavior. No contradiction with 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the core action is stated immediately.
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 large ecosystem of plan-related tools and the mutation nature of this operation, the description lacks workflow context: what 'verified' means, the relationship to mix_create_plan/mix_get_plan, and when to choose this over processing_apply_plan. Output schema and annotations cover safety and returns, but operational context is missing.
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 description's use of 'a plan' minimally maps to the plan_id parameter, but otherwise adds no detail beyond the schema. stop_on_unverified is already documented in the schema. With 50% schema description coverage, the description does not significantly compensate for the undocumented plan_id, but the parameter is inferable from context.
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 specifies a clear verb ('Apply') and resource ('a plan'), with the qualifiers 'once' and 'verified batch kernel' adding operational specificity. It does not explicitly say 'mix plan' and could be confused with siblings like processing_apply_plan, so it stops short of 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 given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention preconditions (e.g., plan must be reviewed/verified) or exclude cases, and it does not reference related siblings like mix_create_plan or processing_apply_plan.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.