Create a submix/stem bus and route specified tracks to it, enabling group volume, effects, and processing in one place.
Create a submix/stem bus and route specified tracks to it.
Args: name: Name for the bus track. source_track_indices: List of track indices to route to this bus.
Returns: Object with bus_track_index and routing info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| source_track_indices | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It states that the tool creates a bus and routes tracks, and mentions a return value, but does not disclose details like whether existing sends are preserved, how routing is represented, or what side effects occur on the source tracks. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 compact and well-structured, with a one-sentence summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no redundant content.
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 no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers invocation well but leaves gaps: 'routing info' is vague, index semantics are not specified, and there is no mention of preconditions or behavioral edge cases. It is adequate but incomplete.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates: 'name' is explained as the bus track name, and 'source_track_indices' is explained as the list of track indices to route. Both required parameters receive meaningful semantics beyond their raw types.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Create a submix/stem bus and route specified tracks to it.' This clearly distinguishes it from routing-related siblings like create_send, because it describes the unique bus-creation behavior.
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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as create_send, insert_track, or add_mastering_chain. There are no explicit use conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.