setup_sidechain_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the non-obvious routing behavior (channels 3-4) and the return shape (send_index + routing info), but omits idempotency, whether an existing send is modified, error conditions for invalid track indices, and whether the destination FX must be present.

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 with the core action, followed by routing detail and a well-formatted Args/Returns block. No redundant sentences and each part earns its place.

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 3-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing semantics, parameter meaning, and return shape. It lacks only edge-case/error behavior and sibling differentiation, which leaves a small gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It documents all three parameters with semantic meaning (src_track as trigger, dest_track as compressor host, volume_db as dB with default 0dB) and gives concrete examples, which is meaningful added value; but it doesn't clarify units beyond dB, valid ranges, or the track index basis.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a sidechain send from one track to another track's FX sidechain input') and explains the routing consequence (channels 3-4). It stands apart from generic siblings like create_send by naming the sidechain target, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from configure_reacomp_sidechain or setup_sidechain_compression.

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?

Usage is implied ('standard sidechain input for compressors like ReaComp') and the Args examples hint at the typical kick-to-bass scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus create_send/configure_reacomp_sidechain guidance or any stated prerequisite that the destination FX must exist.

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