Add effect

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the context of the 'track effects chain' but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as whether the effect is appended to the chain, how mix/parameters are applied, or what happens on repeated additions. Given annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It lists the types in a compact and readable way, with no wasted words.

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?

With no output schema and a moderately complex parameter set (including a nested 'parameters' object), the description is too sparse. It does not mention return values, the purpose of the 'parameters' object, or how this tool relates to sibling tools like add_plugin. The description covers only the basic action, leaving critical context 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It lists the possible values for 'type' (which are already in the enum) but offers no explanation of 'mix', 'trackId', or the nested 'parameters' object. Users must rely entirely on the schema, which is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool with a nested object.

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 action: 'Add a filter, delay, reverb, distortion, compressor, chorus, or limiter to a track effects chain.' It specifies the resource (track effects chain) and enumerates the exact effect types, making it unambiguous and distinguishing from sibling tools like add_plugin.

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 implies clear use context: use this when you want to add any of the listed effect types to a track's effects chain. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as add_plugin for third-party plugins, 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.