live_add_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the creation side effect (new FX channel), the irreversibility caveat ("Not reliably undone by live_undo, so ask before adding"), and what is returned. It stops short of stating any prerequisite state (e.g. whether the channel must be selected or the plugin loaded in the project), leaving a small 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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the mechanism, then alternatives and the risk warning. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried mid-paragraph.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the action, its side effects, the return payload, the irreversibility warning, and sibling routing. An agent could invoke it correctly without opening any other field.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance for `plugin` — names come "by name, from live_plugins" — which tells the agent where valid values originate, beyond the schema's example strings. It adds little extra for `channel` beyond the schema's "Exact channel label."

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: "Add an effect send to a channel in the running Studio One," and immediately explains the side effect (Studio One creates a new FX channel plus a send to it). It distinguishes itself from live_add_bus by noting that sending to an existing bus or FX channel cannot be scripted, and from live_set_send by routing level changes there.

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?

Explicit alternatives are named with their conditions: use live_plugins for plug-in names, live_set_send for the send level, and the tool states a hard exclusion (existing-bus sends are not scriptable). It also gives a consent rule — ask before adding when the user has not clearly asked for it.

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