fx_set_param

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the value range (0.0-1.0) and indexing scheme but does not mention side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. Minimal behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a clear list of arguments. No fluff, every part adds value.

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?

While parameters are well-documented, the description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., track and FX must exist), success/error behavior, and potential impacts on automation or undo. Given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally adequate but could be more 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: `track_index`, `fx_index`, and `param_index` are described as 0-based, and `value` as 0.0-1.0 normalized. This adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 tool sets an FX parameter by index, distinguishing it from the sibling `fx_set_param_by_name`. It also mentions `setup_fx_chain` for batch operations, providing differentiation.

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 explicitly advises to prefer `setup_fx_chain` for batch operations, giving clear guidance on when not to use this tool and suggesting an alternative.

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