add_mastering_chain

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

No annotations, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It correctly discloses the side effect (mutating the master track FX chain) and the exact insertion order, which is genuinely useful context. But it doesn't disclose whether the chain is idempotent, whether it appends or replaces, or whether an existing chain is preserved.

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?

Front-loaded first sentence stating purpose, followed by a compact numbered list of the exact chain. No filler, no 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?

No annotations and no output schema, but the description compensates well by listing the four plugins and the return type (list of added FX indices). The remaining gap is that it doesn't state whether the operation is idempotent or how it interacts with existing master FX.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly notes there is nothing to configure and specifies the fixed plugin sequence, which is the only semantic content available for this no-arg tool.

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 ('Add') and resource ('standard mastering chain to the master track'), and enumerates exactly which plugins get added and in what order. This is immediately distinguishable from generic siblings like add_compressor or add_limiter.

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?

Implicitly suggests use when you want a complete mastering chain in one call rather than adding plugins individually. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over add_compressor/add_limiter/add_eq, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., will it stack on an existing chain?).

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