apply_effect_preset

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral consequences such as overwriting the effect's current parameter values, reversibility, failure modes, or required permissions. 'Apply' implies mutation, but the side effects and error behavior are left unspecified.

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 tight: one action sentence followed by a compact, well-organized Args list. Every line adds new information and nothing is wasted or repeated from the schema.

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?

For a straightforward 3-parameter mutation, the parameter sourcing and the Master bus special case are adequately covered, and the dependency on list_realtime_effects and list_effect_presets is made clear. However, the description omits behavioral details like what happens on success or failure, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, so completeness is only adequate.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter documentation burden. It does so well: each parameter is explained with its source, and the special -2 value for the Master bus is called out. It could add details like zero-based indexing, but 'position in the chain' is reasonably clear.

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 opening line names a specific action ('apply') and a specific resource ('a realtime effect's factory presets') by id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_effect_presets or set_effect_parameter, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 Args section gives clear guidance on where to obtain each parameter: track_id from project_get_info, index from list_realtime_effects, and preset_id from list_effect_presets, including the special -2 Master bus case. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus setting individual effect parameters or other sibling operations.

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