Add FX to track

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that matching is fuzzy and that the tool returns the new FX index. It does not discuss error behavior or edge cases such as invalid track indices, but for a straightforward add-operation this is reasonable coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences convey the action, examples, return value, and matching behavior with zero filler. The most important usage information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose, the plugin naming scheme, fuzzy matching, and return value. The only notable gap is explicit documentation of track_index semantics, though the property name and minimum constraint give an agent enough grounding to call the tool correctly.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for fx_name through examples and the fuzzy-matching note, going beyond the schema's bare 'Plugin name' text. However, track_index is left entirely to the schema's type/minimum constraints, so with only 50% schema coverage the description does not fully compensate for the missing parameter explanation.

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 ('Add an FX/plugin to a track'), the target resource, and the input method (by name). It also provides concrete examples like 'ReaEQ' and 'ReaComp', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, get, or set FX.

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 a clear operational context: use this when adding an effect to a track and when you need the resulting FX index. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent would not confuse it with the FX inspection/manipulation siblings.

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