fx_enable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Enable' which implies a state change, but doesn't disclose idempotency, potential side effects, error behavior, or what happens if the parameters reference invalid indices. This is minimal disclosure for a mutating operation.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear purpose line and parameter explanations. It uses minimal words without waste, though it could benefit from a brief usage note. The structure is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 enable operation, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks almost any behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, out-of-range errors) and gives no guidance on when to use this vs fx_disable. Given its simplicity, it is adequate but not complete.

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?

The description provides clear semantic meaning for both parameters beyond the schema's bare integer types. It explains that track_index is 0-based with -1 for master track, and fx_index is 0-based. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this is essential and fully compensates 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 the verb 'Enable' and the resource 'FX plugin', which is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fx_disable, but the name and description make the purpose clear. The parameter details add context, but the description alone is not enough to distinguish it from all siblings without inference.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the opposite tool fx_disable or any conditions like 'if the FX is disabled'. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from its name and siblings.

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