add_mixer_channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so by revealing a non-obvious gotcha: the channel is routed to Master via an explicit <send> element because LMMS drops the implicit connection, otherwise the channel is silent. This is precisely the kind of side effect an agent needs to know. It does not mention project-state implications such as requiring a loaded project.

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?

Three short sentences plus a compact Args list; every sentence earns its place. The crucial routing warning is front-loaded immediately after the main action, and there is no padding or redundancy.

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 is largely complete for invocation: it covers the required name parameter, optional volume semantics, and the critical routing behavior. The presence of an output schema partially lessens the need to document return values, though it omits the prerequisite of a loaded/current project and how the new channel is referenced by later sibling calls.

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 coverage is 0%, but the Args section fully compensates by providing name examples ('Drums', 'Bass', 'Lead') and explaining the volume range (0.0-2.0) and the meaning of 1.0 as 0dB. Without this text, the volume default would be opaque and value validation impossible.

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 'Add a new mixer channel,' a specific verb and resource that exactly names the operation. The subsequent detail about routing to Master and the sibling set (get_mixer_channels, set_mixer_channel_volume) make the target resource unambiguous and distinct from track-adding tools.

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 this tool—whenever a new mixer channel is needed—but provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with sibling tools such as set_mixer_channel_volume or add_effect. An agent must infer that this is the creation step and that modifications belong to other tools.

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