setup_sidechain_send

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

Annotations are sparse (only destructiveHint=false, no readOnlyHint), so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates this is a write operation ('Create', 'creates a send') and explains the routing to channels 3-4 and the return object (send_index and routing info). However, it does not disclose whether it appends to existing sends, whether it requires a specific FX on the destination track, or potential failure modes if tracks are invalid. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured with a concise purpose statement, a clarifying paragraph on routing, and clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. It is slightly longer than necessary but every part provides value (especially the routing explanation and parameter examples). It is front-loaded with the core action, so an agent quickly grasps the tool's primary function.

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?

The description covers the essential information: action, routing behavior, parameter semantics, and return format. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., destination track must have a compressor with sidechain input) or edge cases (e.g., what happens if a send already exists), but for a straightforward creation tool it is largely complete. Given the presence of many sibling tools, more explicit usage guidance would improve completeness, but this is good enough for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by providing clear explanations for each parameter: src_track (source/trigger track with example), dest_track (destination with example), and volume_db (default 0dB, unit). It adds meaning beyond the raw integer/number types and gives practical context for an agent to select correct values.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Create a sidechain send') and the resource (from one track to another's FX sidechain input). It distinguishes itself from generic create_send by specifying the routing to channels 3-4, which is a unique trait. This makes it easy for an agent to differentiate from similar sibling tools like setup_sidechain_compression or configure_reacomp_sidechain.

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 the standard use case (sidechain routing for compressors like ReaComp) but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as create_send, setup_sidechain_compression, or configure_reacomp_sidechain. An agent is left to infer when this tool is preferred over siblings, and there is no guidance on when not to use it or which tool to use instead for different sidechain configurations.

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