track_fx_add_by_name

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=false annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: position is 0-based, -1 appends at the end, 0 inserts at the beginning, and the return value includes the FX index. It does not cover failure modes for unknown FX names or duplicate adds, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and organized into clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundant or filler 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?

The description covers the main operation, two of three parameters, and gives a return hint. It is not fully complete because track_index is undocumented, failure behavior for invalid plugin names is unspecified, and there is no mention of how this differs from take_fx_add_by_name. This is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 0% schema description coverage, the prose carries the burden and does document fx_name richly (examples, exact-name requirement) and position (default and 0-based semantics). However, it omits track_index entirely, a required parameter, so a critical argument is left for the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific action, resource, and selection mechanism: 'Add an FX plugin to a track by name.' This clearly distinguishes it from take_fx_add_by_name and the specialized add_eq/add_limiter tools, so an agent can tell what the tool does at a glance.

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 main use case is implied by the function statement, and the fx_name guidance ('Use the exact plugin name as it appears in REAPER's FX browser') is actionable. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as take_fx_add_by_name, nor when not to use it.

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