Fx Add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses only target syntax and chain-index placement. It says nothing about mutation semantics, required permissions, reversibility, or failure conditions for what is clearly a state-changing operation.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two clarifying details; no filler. Slightly terse on project/fx, but structurally efficient.

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, and target/index are covered. But for a 4-parameter mutating tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, leaving 'project' and the fx field's structure undocumented (even by reference) is a real gap.

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. It usefully documents target (with a literal grammar for track/bus/master) and index (default end), but leaves 'project' unexplained and defers the fx object's contents entirely to fx_help.

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') and the target scope ('<track>', 'bus:<name>' or 'master'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like fx_set or fx_remove, so it falls short of a 5.

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 routes the agent to fx_help for the fx payload and explains the index default, which implies usage. However, it never says when to use fx_add versus fx_set/fx_remove, nor any prerequisite or exclusion, so guidance is only implied.

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