load_instrument_or_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral nuances (track_index ignored for master, track_kind semantics) but does not mention side effects, whether the operation replaces existing devices, or any permissions/error behavior. This is a mutation tool, so more transparency would be expected for a higher score.

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 a single, clear opening sentence followed by a focused parameter list. Every line adds meaningful information—no fluff, repetition, or irrelevant details. It is well-structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 load operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, all parameter semantics, and special cases (master/return). It lacks details on return values or error behavior, but for this tool's simplicity and given the rich parameter documentation, it is sufficiently complete. A minor gap is the lack of any prerequisite mention.

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?

The input schema provides only parameter names with no descriptions (0% schema coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: track_index as the destination track and its master exception, uri as a browser URI from specific tools, and track_kind with its default and allowed values. This adds substantial value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('load'), the resource ('instrument or effect'), and the target ('onto a track'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like load_drum_kit by covering generic instruments/effects, and it references the browser URI source tools (get_browser_tree / get_browser_items_at_path), making its scope unambiguous.

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 clear context on how to use the tool, including that track_index is ignored for master and the track_kind options ('regular', 'return', 'master'). However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like load_drum_kit or exclude other tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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