load_instrument_or_effect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the operation and parameters but does not disclose side effects, such as whether loading overwrites an existing device, whether the track must already have a device chain, or any error behavior. As a mutation tool, this lack of safety/state-change detail is a notable gap.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a pointer to discovery tools, and a clean Args section. No redundant or extraneous content; every sentence 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?

For a 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, prerequisite discovery steps, and parameter meanings. However, it omits details about device slot placement, failure modes, or track requirements, which are relevant given the lack of annotations. Still, it is reasonably complete for a straightforward load operation.

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 provides only titles (Uri, Track Index) with zero descriptions, so the description fully compensates by explicitly defining track_index as 'Zero-based index of the target track' and uri as 'The browser URI of the instrument or effect to load.' This adds crucial 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 action: 'Load an instrument or effect onto a track using its browser URI.' The verb 'load' is specific, the resource (instrument/effect) is named, and the mechanism (browser URI) is provided. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like load_device_on_master/return, which target different destinations, and get_browser_tree, which is for discovery.

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 gives clear context by instructing users to use get_browser_tree or get_browser_items_at_path to discover URIs, which is a necessary prerequisite. It does not explicitly compare to alternative loading tools (e.g., load_device_on_master) or state when not to use it, but the guidance is direct and actionable.

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