add_limiter

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

The annotations provide destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that the operation returns an object with fx_index, which implies a new FX insertion. It does not disclose further behavior such as whether it always appends a new instance or whether it interacts with existing limiting FX, but the mutation is clear.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the return information is separated cleanly.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, the target is implied by 'to a track', and it documents the return value despite the lack of an output schema. It omits minor context such as track indexing details, but the complexity is low.

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%, but the single parameter track_index is partly clarified by the phrase 'to a track', indicating that this parameter identifies the target track. The description does not add details like zero-based indexing or the requirement that the track exists, so the compensation is only partial.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add'), a specific resource ('ReaLimit'), and clarifies that it is a brickwall limiter applied to a track. This distinguishes it from sibling add_* tools like add_compressor and add_eq, and from generic track_fx_add_by_name.

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 intended use is implied: use when you want to add ReaLimit to a track. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, or when a generic tool like track_fx_add_by_name would be more appropriate.

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