ReaMCP

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully documents special parameter conventions (-1 for master track, FX name format acceptance) and the Input FX vs FX chain behavior. However, it omits critical behavioral details: whether the FX is appended or prepended to the chain, what occurs if the FX name is invalid, or the nature of the output return value (despite an output schema existing).

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?

The description is appropriately compact with zero filler content. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, followed by parameter-specific details in a bulleted format. While the bullet points deviate from pure prose, they are highly scannable and efficient for an AI agent parsing the definition.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema (covering return values) and the complexity (3 parameters), the description adequately covers inputs despite the 0% schema coverage. It successfully documents all parameters, but a perfect score would require mentioning error conditions (e.g., invalid track indices) or the append/prepend behavior in the FX 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters with precise semantics: track_index explains the 0-based indexing and master track convention (-1), fx_name provides concrete format examples ('ReaComp', 'VST: Serum'), and input_fx clarifies its effect on routing (input chain vs standard FX chain). This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Add') and target ('FX plugin' to 'a track'), using precise domain terminology. It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like remove_fx or set_fx_param through the verb choice, though it could more explicitly differentiate from insert_audio_file or clarify that this instantiates the plugin rather than configuring existing ones.

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 provides implicit usage guidance through the parameter explanations (e.g., distinguishing input FX chain from regular FX chain via the input_fx flag), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or references to complementary tools like list_available_fx for finding valid fx_name values. No prerequisites or side-effect warnings are mentioned.

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