add_fx_by_name

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

The destructiveHint annotation is confirmed by the description's implication of mutation. The description adds value by explaining validation against inventory, the graceful 'not found' message, and the explicit statement that Orpheus never auto-installs plugins, which goes beyond the annotation.

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 with two sentences delivering core purpose and behavioral traits. It is front-loaded but could be slightly more structured by separating parameter details.

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 description covers validation and error handling, which is good. However, it lacks parameter semantics, and the mention of 'all three live servers' is an anecdote that may not be necessary for an AI agent. Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, it is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'fuzzy name' for fx_name but provides no details on the 'track' parameter (e.g., format, how to specify it). This is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter usage.

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 tool adds an FX by fuzzy name with validation against installed plugins. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., set_fx_param, get_fx_params) by focusing on adding a new FX and handling errors gracefully.

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 indicates using the tool to add an FX by name and includes behavior for no-match cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though no direct alternative sibling exists for adding FX.

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