Create sidechain pump

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

Despite annotations only indicating a mutating, open-world operation, the description discloses the exact internal chain (Select, Lag, Limit, Null CHOPs), the expression applied to each target, the warning/failure behavior ('Per-target failures become warnings; fatal only if source_chop or parent COMP is missing'), and the experimental/version caveat. This goes well beyond the structured 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 a single dense block but is front-loaded with the core purpose and every subsequent clause adds either distinction, construction details, or failure behavior. No filler or repetition; the formula and examples are compactly integrated.

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 9-parameter, no-output-schema builder tool, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is created, how the internal chain works, how targets are bound, what the stable output handle is, and what conditions cause warnings vs fatal errors. The container path is inferable from parent_path and name, so no separate return-value documentation is necessary.

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?

Although the schema already has 100% parameter descriptions, the tool description adds essential semantics: the actual binding expression rest_value * (1 - depth * op('<pump>')[chan0]), the meaning of depth extremes (0 = no dip, 1 = full dip to zero), and typical ranges (0.7–0.9 depth, 0.001–0.02 attack, 0.1–0.6 release). This meaningfully exceeds the schema's field-level comments.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'build a sidechain ducking envelope from a trigger CHOP channel and bind multiple target parameters to dip on every hit.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from create_envelope_follower, naming the sibling and contrasting its multiple-target pump approach.

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 when-to-use guidance ('ideal for classic pumping compressor feel across many targets at once') and names the alternative create_envelope_follower with its gate/duck threshold approach. It also tells the user when to omit targets ('build the chain only (bind manually with bind_to_channel later)'), covering both use and non-use cases.

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