Connect Max/MSP bridge

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. The description adds that it creates a scaffold with channel maps, which is useful, but it does not detail side effects such as where the scaffold is created, whether existing components are modified, or network/port implications. It provides basic transparency but lacks depth.

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 sentence with a clear verb and object, no redundant wording, and gets straight to the point. It is compact and easy to scan, which is ideal for an agent evaluating tool options.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and a complex operation (creating a scaffold), this one-sentence description is too sparse. It omits critical details about what exactly is created, where (parent_path), how ports are used, and what constitutes the channel maps. An agent would not fully understand the tool's behavior or prerequisites from the description alone.

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 only 44%, with 5 of 9 parameters lacking descriptions. The description mentions parameter and audio-feature channel maps, hinting at include_audio_features and channel_count, but it does not explain send_port, receive_port, active, parent_path, or other fields. This insufficiently compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 'Create' and names a concrete resource: 'Max/MSP OSC bridge scaffold' with 'parameter and audio-feature channel maps.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling bridge tools like connect_unity_osc_bridge or connect_vmix_production by targeting a specific system and purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as connect_unity_osc_bridge or connect_resolume_arena. The name and description imply it is for Max/MSP integration, but there is no stated context, exclusions, or comparison to other tools. Usage is inferred rather than explained.

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