fx_disable

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Bypass', which implies a state change but doesn't clarify if it toggles, what happens to the plugin's state, or if there are side effects (e.g., automation, undo). Minimal transparency.

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 very concise with a clear header and bulleted arguments. No redundant text, but could include more context without being verbose.

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 tool, the description provides basic info but omits what 'bypass' means precisely (e.g., temporary/permanent, effect on output). No output schema, but return value is likely void. Lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand behavior.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by noting '0-based track index' and '0-based FX chain index', clarifying indexing which the schema omitted. This compensates well for the schema's lack of detail.

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 clearly states 'Bypass an FX plugin' with a specific verb and resource. Among siblings like fx_enable, fx_remove, etc., this uniquely identifies the action.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fx_enable for unbypass, fx_remove for deletion). No prerequisites or context about when bypassing is appropriate.

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