create_bus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important non-obvious side effect that this both creates a bus track and reroutes the listed tracks into it via sends. It omits send level defaults, irreversibility, and what happens if indices are invalid or already routed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key parameter note. No filler, though the second sentence is slightly redundant with the first's 'route the given tracks.'

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 an unannotated mutation with a compound side effect and no output schema, the core behavior is explained but key operational details are missing: default send level, return value (e.g., new bus index/name), and error behavior for out-of-range indices.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies track_indices as the tracks 'to feed into the bus,' which is meaningful, but leaves 'name' and format constraints (index base, ordering, duplicates) undocumented.

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 new bus track') plus the compound routing behavior via sends. It is distinguishable from siblings like create_track or create_send by the combined create-and-route action, though it never names those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: create a bus when you want multiple tracks summed through sends. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance versus create_send (routing to an existing bus) or create_track (plain track creation), which are the nearest siblings an agent would hesitate between.

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