Bus Add

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about the defaults (volume_db=0, fx=null), what an effect-return bus does to the project state, whether it persists, or what permissions are needed. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose first, follow-on routing second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, which lightens the load. However, with four parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves key calling details undocumented.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only 'name' is referenced (via the sends/output syntax); project, fx, and volume_db are never explained, and the sends=-12 example is ambiguous about which parameter it maps to.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Add an effect-return bus') and gives a concrete example ('reverb'), so the agent knows exactly what is created. It does not distinguish itself from related siblings such as live_bus, which is the only gap.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to use the created bus afterward: route via track_set(sends={name: -12}) or track_set(output=name). This is actionable operational guidance. It stops short of saying when to prefer bus_add over alternative routing approaches, so it is not a full 5.

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