fx_disable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that the tool bypasses a plugin but does not disclose whether the effect is a toggle, whether it is reversible, what state it leaves the FX chain in, or what side effects occur. There is no annotation contradiction since annotations are absent.

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 highly concise: one clear action sentence followed by a compact Args block. There is no filler, the key verb is front-loaded, and the parameter explanations are scannable and specific.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the parameter semantics are complete enough to make a correct call. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits behavioral context such as whether the bypass can be reversed with fx_enable, whether it affects the signal immediately, or what the tool returns. It is minimally viable but leaves operational uncertainty.

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?

Both parameters receive meaningful semantic detail beyond the bare schema: track_index is documented as 0-based with -1 as the master-track sentinel, and fx_index is documented as 0-based. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this fully compensates for the schema's lack of explanatory value.

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 states a concrete action ('Bypass an FX plugin') and clearly identifies the target resource via track_index and fx_index. It is not a tautology, and while it doesn't explicitly name siblings like fx_enable, the verb 'Bypass' distinguishes it from enabling or removing 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?

There is no guidance about when to use fx_disable versus fx_enable, fx_remove_batch, or setup_fx_chain. The only hint is the tool name and 'Bypass', with no mention of prerequisites, reversibility, or alternative selection conditions.

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