plugin_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal an important behavioral distinction (built-in vs. VST requiring preset_path), but it omits details like insertion point in the chain, whether the plugin must already be discovered, and potential failure modes. It is adequate 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 two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance is compact and directly actionable.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the main parameter variation but leaves the 'name' field unexplained and does not address chain position, prerequisites, or return values. It is sufficient for the common cases but has clear gaps for full autonomous use.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful guidance for 'type' (built-in names like '4OSC', 'Wavetable') and for 'preset_path' (required for external VSTs), but it leaves 'name' and 'track_id' without any explanatory context beyond the raw 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add a plugin to a track's chain.' It also clarifies the two main usage variants (built-in type names vs. external VST preset paths), which disambiguates it from sibling plugin_add_* tools like plugin_add_drum_kit and plugin_add_reverb.

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 clearly explains when to use the tool: any time a plugin needs to be added to a track's chain, with specific parameter guidance for built-ins versus external VSTs. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select this over other plugin tools.

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