take_fx_add_by_name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it documents the return index and the -1 failure case, plus the exact-name requirement, but it does not describe permissions, undo behavior, or side effects on the take.

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-loads the action and uses structured Args/Returns sections. The content is useful and mostly tight, though the multi-line formatting is slightly heavy for a short tool description.

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 schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description should explain how to target the take. It omits the meaning of track_index, item_index, and take_index, and provides no usage exclusions, though it does document the return and failure value.

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 carry parameter meaning. It documents fx_name with examples and exact-name guidance, but track_index, item_index, and take_index are not explained at all, leaving three of four required parameters semantically empty.

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 and resource: add an FX plugin to a take by name. The take-scoped wording distinguishes it from the sibling track_fx_add_by_name, so an agent can tell the target level without opening the schema.

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 implies when to use it by naming the operation and target, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus track_fx_add_by_name or other FX insertion tools. The only usage instruction is about the fx_name format.

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