plugin_add_modifier

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the wiring behavior (modifies both <MODIFIERS> and <MODIFIERASSIGNMENTS>) and parameter semantics (depth range, rate interpretation, shape enums). It does not mention side effects, return values, or error conditions, but it provides substantial insight beyond the schema.

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 concise, roughly three sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and parameter details presented in a structured way using enums and parentheses. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and scope, the second explains the wiring, and the third details parameter constraints. No redundancy or fluff.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior, wiring, and key parameters. It omits details like whether the modifier is added to existing modifiers or replaces them, and it doesn't specify return values or failure modes. However, the essential information needed to call the tool correctly (modifier types, rate/depth/shape semantics, and target assignment) is present, making it nearly complete.

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 11% (only rate_type has a description), so the description must compensate. It explains depth (0..1 modulation amount), rate (Hz or beat multiplier), rate_type (0/1), shape (enum), and modifier_type (via the opening sentence). It leaves track_id, target_plugin_id, target_param, and phase unexplained, but those are largely self-explanatory from their names. The description adds significant meaning for most parameters.

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 explicitly states the action (Add a TRACK-LEVEL modifier) and the resource (modifier assigned to a plugin parameter), with specific types (LFO/envelope/random/step_lfo). It also distinguishes itself by mentioning the Tracktion schema wiring both <MODIFIERS> and <MODIFIERASSIGNMENTS>, which sets it apart from sibling tools like automation_add or plugin_add_macro.

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 when to use it (for track-level modulation of plugin parameters) and clarifies the beat-synced vs Hz behavior via rate_type. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'TRACK-LEVEL' qualifier and the focus on modifier assignment provide clear context that differentiates it from similar tools.

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