take_fx_add_by_name

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

The annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully documents the return value (ret with new FX index or -1 on failure), which is good context. However, it does not describe insertion position, whether existing FX are affected, or any other side effects of adding the plugin.

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: a one-sentence purpose followed by clear Args and Returns sections. There is no filler; every part contributes necessary information. The incomplete Args section is a semantic issue, not a structural or conciseness problem.

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?

With four required parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description leaves important gaps. It does not clarify zero-based indexing, how to identify the correct take, or how this operation relates to take FX workflows. The return behavior is documented, but key operational details are missing.

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 by explaining all parameters. It only documents fx_name, giving examples and the 'exact plugin name' instruction. track_index, item_index, and take_index are left entirely to inference from their names, which is insufficient for a tool with four required parameters.

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: 'Add an FX plugin to a take by name.' The 'by name' qualifier distinguishes it from index-based FX operations, and 'to a take' helps differentiate it from track_fx_add_by_name. The purpose is immediately clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like track_fx_add_by_name or other take FX manipulation tools. It does not mention prerequisites, target selection context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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