Agregar efecto nativo permitido

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

The description discloses that the tool verifies identity, GUID, and state, which goes beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint=false. However, it doesn't explain what this verification entails or any side effects, leaving ambiguity about failure conditions.

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 a single, direct sentence without unnecessary words, effectively communicating the core action.

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 mutation tool with three required parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but sparse. It doesn't clarify the verification mechanics or any preconditions, though the output schema likely covers return values.

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 schema has no descriptions for project_ref, track_guid, or fx_type, and the description adds little beyond saying it adds ReaComp or ReaEQ. Track_guid is implied in the verification but not explicitly explained.

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 adds ReaComp or ReaEQ to a track and verifies identity, GUID, and state. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like configure_reacomp and configure_reaeq_band, which configure rather than add.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites or context, such as needing to add the stock effect before configuring it.

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