set_effect_parameter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the exact-value mutation semantics and adds a valuable live caveat about VST3 normalized 0-1 scaling versus displayed units, plus the advice to re-read currentValueString afterward. It does not mention return values or error behavior, but the most important behavioral quirk is covered.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence, followed by a compact Args-style breakdown. The VST3 caveat is long but necessary and correctly placed under value, so every sentence earns its place.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides all lookup paths, range constraints, and a critical units mismatch warning. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and verify the result by re-reading currentValueString.

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 fully compensates. Every parameter is explained with its source or constraint: track_id's Master bus sentinel, index from the effect chain, parameter_id from the effect parameter list, and value bounded by minValue/maxValue with the normalized-scale warning.

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?

States a specific action — 'set one real-time parameter on a realtime effect to an exact value' — with concrete examples like wet/dry mix and decay time. It explicitly distinguishes itself from add/remove/bypass whole-effect operations, making it clearly separable from sibling tools like set_realtime_effect_active.

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?

Provides explicit lookup sources for every argument: project_get_info for track_id, list_realtime_effects for index, and list_effect_parameters for parameter_id and value range. It also tells the agent when not to use this tool (not for adding/removing/bypassing effects), which is strong alternative guidance.

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