add_compressor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation (adding an effect) but says nothing about permissions, whether the effect is inserted at a particular position in the chain, or whether an existing ReaComp is replaced. Only the return shape is mentioned.

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 text is two short, front-loaded statements that say what the tool does and what it returns. No filler or redundancy is present.

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?

The description mentions the return object but says nothing about essential behavioral details such as chain position, replacement behavior, or prerequisites. Without annotations, an output schema, or parameter documentation, the definition leaves large gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

There is one parameter, track_index, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema gives no semantic detail. The description also omits any explanation of track_index (e.g., index scope, whether it is absolute), providing essentially no added meaning.

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 action (add ReaComp) and a specific target (a track), so the verb+resource is clear. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from close siblings such as track_fx_add_by_name or configure_reacomp_sidechain, which an agent would need to disambiguate.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool rather than track_fx_add_by_name or the related compressor setup tools. The description gives no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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