add_effect_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the one-line purpose: no permission/authorization requirements, no indication of whether the effect applies immediately or on render, and no explanation of how 'effect' and 'preset' interact (mutually exclusive? both allowed?). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the target scope stated up front. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the specification gaps rather than a virtue.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations the definition is far too thin: nothing on parameter relationships, defaults, required context (project_path), or side effects on the existing effect chain.

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?

Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage means the description must compensate, and it only partially does: 'effect (or preset)' maps to the effect/preset params and 'track or speaker' hints at track_id/speaker. The 'params' object and 'project_path' get no mention at all, and no format or exclusivity rules are given.

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 names a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('effect (or preset)') and scopes it to a target ('a track or speaker's effect chain'). That is enough to distinguish it from remove_effect_tool and set_effect_bypass_tool by verb alone, though it never names those siblings 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus remove_effect_tool, list_effects_tool, or set_effect_bypass_tool, and no preconditions (must the track exist, must the effect be installed?). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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