set_realtime_effect_active

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It clearly explains the state transition ('True to enable, False to bypass') and explicitly notes that the effect is not removed, preventing a wrong assumption of destructive behavior. It does not mention outcome reporting or edge cases, but for a simple toggle this is adequate.

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 compact, front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, and uses a concise Args block with no redundant prose. Every line contributes necessary information.

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 three-parameter boolean setter with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it identifies the chain, the track selection convention, the effect index source, and the active semantics. The main gap is that it does not describe what the tool returns or what happens on invalid input, but this is minor for such a focused utility.

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 fully compensate. It does: track_id is tied to project_get_info's track list with -2 as Master bus, index is tied to list_realtime_effects, and active is explicitly mapped to enable/bypass. Every parameter is given meaning beyond its raw type.

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 names a specific verb ('Enable or bypass'), a specific resource ('one effect in a track's or the Master bus's realtime effect chain'), and clarifies scope ('without removing it'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_realtime_effect, remove_realtime_effect, and list_realtime_effects.

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 useful usage context: track_id comes from project_get_info's track list, -2 means the Master bus, and index comes from list_realtime_effects. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over remove_realtime_effect or add_realtime_effect, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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