aux_return_add

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

The description discloses the primary behavior—adding an aux return plugin and receiving audio from the specified bus—but does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing plugins or error handling when the track doesn't exist. Given no annotations, this is moderately transparent but not exhaustive.

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, free of fluff, and logically structured: it states the action, explains the purpose, and provides a practical example. No redundancy.

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 simple tool that adds an aux return, the description gives sufficient context for an agent to understand when and how to use it, including a typical workflow with send_add. No output schema is needed, and the provided information is complete for its complexity.

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 bus_num parameter is explained with a range (0..15) and its role in routing, while track_id is implicitly clear as the target track. The schema defines constraints, and the description adds semantic meaning beyond the raw values.

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 an auxreturn plugin to a track' and specifies the purpose 'so it receives audio from the given bus number'. It also differentiates from send_add by pairing, making the tool's intent 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?

It provides explicit guidance on pairing with send_add and gives a concrete example for parallel routing (drum tracks send to bus 0, aux-return applies reverb), making it clear when this tool is appropriate.

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