live_add_bus

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavior, and it does: it discloses the mutation's side effect (track outputs are rerouted), the reversibility guarantee ('One live_undo removes it'), the persistence of selection, and the return payload. It does not cover failure modes, e.g. what happens with an unknown track name.

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, front-loaded with the action, followed by the return value and the undo guarantee. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers effect, return shape, reversibility, and selection preservation. The remaining gap is error behavior for invalid track names, which is minor but non-trivial for a routing change.

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 50%: 'tracks' is documented as 'Exact track names' in the schema itself, while 'kind' has only an enum. The description adds meaning to 'kind' by explaining what each option does, but contributes nothing to 'tracks' beyond the schema. Baseline 3 fits with schema doing half the work.

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 ('Create a bus... or a VCA') and immediately explains the effect: 'their outputs are routed into it'. This distinguishes it from the sibling add tools (live_add_track, live_add_instrument_track, live_add_send) by naming the routing/VCA concept explicitly.

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 clarifies the bus-vs-VCA choice inline ('routed into it' vs 'controls them'), which is real decision guidance for the enum. It does not name alternatives such as live_add_send or state prerequisites/exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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