add_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add value: it discloses the slot fallback behavior and that the return value is the slot plugin's id for get_plugin_params/set_plugin_param. However, it says nothing about what happens if the requested slot is already occupied (overwrite? error?), whether the effect becomes active immediately, or any failure modes 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?

Two compact sentences, zero filler, with the primary action and slot rule front-loaded and the return-value note second. Every clause carries information.

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 3-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, parameter sourcing, slot defaulting, and return value plus follow-up tools. Only error/overwrite semantics on an occupied slot are missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain all three parameters: `plugin` (name from list_plugins), `track` (an id), and `slot` (0..9 or first free, implicitly optional). It doesn't say where a valid track id comes from (e.g., add_mixer_track), which is the one remaining gap.

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?

Specific verb ('add') plus resource ('effect plugin') plus target ('mixer track'), with the slot placement rule stated inline. An agent can tell this apart from remove_effect/set_effect by the additive wording and the explicit 'slot 0..9 or the first free one' scope.

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?

Gives a real prerequisite: `plugin` must be 'a name from list_plugins', which tells the agent to call that sibling first. It also explains slot defaulting. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it (e.g., versus set_effect or remove_effect), so no explicit exclusions.

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