add_limiter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the return shape (fx_index). It does not state what happens on failure, whether an existing limiter is replaced, whether the FX is appended at the end of the chain, or any permission/installation requirement for a mutation operation.

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, action stated first, return value second; nothing is wasted. The 'Returns:' block is slightly awkwardly formatted for a description but is still clear and front-loaded.

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?

Because no output schema exists, the description usefully supplies the return object (fx_index). However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations and an undocumented required parameter, it omits the operational details an agent needs to invoke it reliably.

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% for the single required parameter track_index, and the description never mentions it, so no meaning is added (e.g., whether indices are 0-based or how to obtain a valid index). The schema itself documents only the type, leaving the parameter effectively unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add ReaLimit (brickwall limiter) to a track') and names the concrete plugin being inserted, so the agent knows exactly what effect is created. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like track_fx_add_by_name or add_compressor, but the named plugin makes intent unambiguous.

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 on when to choose this over the generic track_fx_add_by_name, add_compressor, or add_mastering_chain. There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering relative to other FX, or whether the plugin must be installed. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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