fx

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: track_index -1 addresses the master, set accepts normalized 0..1 or a display-formatted value resolved by text search, and set returns the formatted value actually applied. However, it says nothing about destructive semantics of delete, what preset does (save vs load vs recall), or whether bypass/move are idempotent or error-prone.

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?

Extremely dense telegram-style prose; every clause carries information, with the action enum front-loaded and the value-formatting rule following immediately. It reads tersely rather than bloated, though the run-on formatting of the set semantics could be split for readability.

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 an eight-action, ten-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core mechanics but omits the parameter-to-action mapping, the meaning of the preset action, and any error behavior. An agent could probably invoke list or set correctly but would be guessing on move, preset, and bypass.

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 coverage is 0% across ten parameters, and the description documents only the highest-value ones: action, track_index (-1 = master), value (REAPER normalized 0..1), and formatted (unit number or label like "3.2k"). Six parameters — param, preset, enabled, fx_name, fx_index, dest_index — are left entirely to name inference, which is a real gap even if most are guessable.

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?

Names the resource (track FX) and enumerates all eight actions in a compact action: list | add | params | set | delete | bypass | move | preset, so an agent immediately knows the surface area. Sibling tools are other domains (track, item, envelope), so the resource name does most of the differentiation work, but there is no explicit statement distinguishing when this belongs to track vs item FX.

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 action enum implies modes but there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus track, envelope, or run_lua, and no prerequisites (e.g. that an FX must be added before params/set/b bypass can target it). Nothing tells the agent which parameters are required for which action, leaving ten parameters to be inferred.

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