Add plugin

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

Annotations indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description's 'Add' aligns with that. However, it discloses little beyond the VST3 note about exposing parameters/state for a native bridge. It does not describe side effects, slot ordering, failure modes, or return behavior, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds useful VST3 context. It is appropriately sized and every sentence earns its place.

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 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not cover parameter meaning, usage context, or side effects. The sibling overlap with add_effect and update_plugin is unaddressed, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use correctly.

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 carries full responsibility for explaining the 7 parameters, but it does not. It only mentions 'parameters' in the context of VST3 exposing them, not the input parameter. The 'format' enum is self-explanatory, but uri, path, vendor, and trackId are left completely undocumented.

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') and resource ('plugin slot'), and enumerates the supported formats (builtin, WAM, VST3). It distinguishes from some siblings by focusing on 'plugin slot' rather than effects, but does not explicitly contrast with add_effect, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_effect or update_plugin. The description does not mention prerequisites, workflow context, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name alone.

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