Delete a return bus, its effects, and every track send routed to it; later buses shift down one index, and the change is undoable.
Delete a return bus with its effects and every track's send to it. Later buses move down one index. Undoable (the sends come back too).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bus | Yes | Return bus index. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real value on top: it names the cascade (bus effects and per-track sends are removed), the index-shift side effect on later buses, and that the operation is undoable with sends restored.
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, zero waste, with the destructive action and its cascade front-loaded before the index-shift and undo notes.
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?
For a one-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, cascade behavior, index consequences and reversibility — everything an agent needs before invoking it.
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 100% and the single parameter is documented there as 'Return bus index', so the description adds no syntax or range detail beyond it; baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Delete a return bus') plus its scope of effect (its effects and every track's send to it), which cleanly separates it from mixer_add_return and mixer_set_return.
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 context of use is clear from the deletion semantics and the disclosure that later buses shift down, but it never explicitly names alternatives or a when-not-to-use condition (e.g. to clear sends without deleting, use mixer_set_send).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.