add_mastering_chain

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It fully discloses the exact plugin list, their order, and the return value (list of added FX indices). This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand the side effect and what to expect back.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, a numbered list for the plugin chain, and a brief note on the return value. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is 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?

For a tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the target track, exact actions taken, and the return type. A slight gap is that it does not mention whether the tool assumes the master track already exists or how it interacts with existing FX on that track, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters)Skip the schema already covers everything. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information, which is appropriate.

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') and a precise resource ('standard mastering chain to the master track'), then enumerates the exact plugins in order. This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like add_parallel_compression or add_limiter, which target different signal chains.

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 makes it clear this is for establishing a standard mastering chain on the master track, which gives the agent strong contextual guidance. It does not explicitly state when to prefer alternative tools like add_eq or add_compressor, but the specificity of 'standard mastering chain' sufficiently implies the intended use case.

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