add_compressor

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

The description reveals that the function adds an effect and returns an object with fx_index, but it does not disclose side effects beyond that. It does not mention whether existing compressors are affected, whether duplicates are allowed, or whether the track must already exist. Annotations only cover non-destructiveness, leaving behavioral details largely undisclosed.

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 compact, with no wasted words. The purpose statement is front-loaded and the return-value note adds useful information without redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is mostly adequate: it states the action, target, and return shape. However, it omits important contextual details such as the meaning of track_index, whether the index is zero-based, and what happens if the track does not exist or already has a compressor.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies track_index refers to the target track, but it does not explain indexing conventions, required preconditions, or how the index maps to tracks. This is minimal compensation for an undocumented parameter.

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 specific action ('Add ReaComp') and the target resource ('a track'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like add_eq or add_limiter because it names the exact effect plugin.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as track_fx_add_by_name, configure_reacomp_sidechain, or add_parallel_compression. There is no context about preferred use cases or exclusions.

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