add_vst_track

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers meaningful context: it names the host mechanism (Vestige), exposes a real failure mode ('64-bit LMMS needs 64-bit VSTs'), and documents parameter ranges. It stops short of describing error behavior for invalid paths, but the mutation semantics are self-evident from 'add' and the output schema covers the return shape.

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 terse sentences plus a scannable Args block; the purpose statement is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place. There is zero wasted wording.

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 an output schema covering return values, the description correctly focuses on invocation semantics and covers the important non-obvious facts: Vestige hosting, architecture compatibility, and all parameter ranges. Only minor gaps remain, such as explicit error behavior for bad paths and explicit sibling routing.

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 — and it does completely. Every parameter gains value beyond its title: dll_path gets the 'absolute path' requirement, mixer_channel gets '0=Master', volume gets '0-200', panning gets '-100 to +100', and name gets a concrete example.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Add a track hosting a VST plugin (.dll file).' The VST/Vestige qualifier clearly distinguishes this from the sibling track creators (add_instrument_track, add_sample_track, add_automation_track, add_pattern_track) without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this when the goal is hosting a VST .dll, reinforced by the Vestige-host line. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, such as when a built-in LMMS instrument route (add_instrument_track) would be the better choice.

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