load_device_on_master

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action and parameter, but omits potential side effects like whether the device replaces existing devices on the master track, whether it appends to the chain, or if any permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args section is one line and directly clarifies the parameter. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the action, target, parameter meaning, and discovery method. It lacks deeper behavioral context (e.g., chain behavior, error cases), but for a simple load operation this is a minor gap.

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?

The schema only provides a title and type for 'uri', with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by defining the parameter: 'The browser URI of the instrument or effect to load.' It also explains how to obtain valid URIs. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Load a device onto the master track') and the method ('using its browser URI'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like load_device_on_return and load_instrument_or_effect by explicitly targeting the master track.

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?

It provides a clear prerequisite: 'Use get_browser_tree or get_browser_items_at_path to discover available URIs.' This tells the agent how to obtain the required input. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the master-track target is clear enough to imply when to use this over load_device_on_return.

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