add_playback

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that output routing and plug-in settings are inherited from a template strip rather than defaulted, which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, whether it mutates and persists the patch, or what is returned.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the template behavior. No wasted wording, though the second sentence could be tightened and a single clause on parameter expectations would be worth the space.

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?

This is a mutating tool with seven parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and near-zero schema description coverage. The description covers the high-level action and template inheritance but leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently — units for volume_db, semantics of wait_seconds, and the effect of muted are all unstated.

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 description coverage is only 14% — just audio_file has a description ('Absolute path of the audio file'), and the description text adds no further format or constraint detail. Five other parameters (label, muted, volume_db, wait_seconds, plus the patch and concert identifiers' expected format) get no meaning from either the schema or the description. The description should compensate for that gap and does not.

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 specific verb and resource: it adds a Playback channel strip, playing a given audio file, into a named patch. That is concrete and distinguishable from sibling tools like set_channel or get_patch. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the second sentence signals a prerequisite, that an existing Playback channel strip (from your concerts or MAINSTAGE_PLAYBACK_TEMPLATE) must be available to act as a template. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of what to do if no template strip exists.

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