track_fx_move

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the move is constrained to a single track's chain, indices are 0-based, and position 0 means the beginning. It does not say what happens to intervening plugins or out-of-range indices, so it is additive but incomplete.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is short and readable. Listing fx_index/new_position in prose is mildly redundant with the schema keys but justified by the 0% coverage, so the text largely 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?

With no output schema and no annotations about returns, the description covers the core semantics well enough to call the tool, but omits track_index and says nothing about error/out-of-range behavior or return value. Adequate for a simple move, but not complete.

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 the burden. It usefully documents fx_index (current, 0-based) and new_position (0-based, 0 = beginning of chain), but track_index is a required parameter that is never mentioned anywhere, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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 ('Move an FX plugin') with the scope narrowed to 'within the same track's FX chain', which distinguishes it from chain-mutating siblings like track_fx_add_by_name and track_fx_delete. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as track_fx_delete plus re-add for cross-track moves. The scope note ('same track's FX chain') implicitly rules out cross-track reordering, but that is inference, not guidance.

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