Live Bus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral context: wet-only signal behavior for reverb/delay unless 'dry' is given, that a replaced chain's tail rings out, and that remove=True destroys both the bus and the sends into it. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or throttling, and avoids return-format detail (an output schema exists), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose before diving into fx and remove semantics, and every sentence carries information. It is dense and parenthetical-heavy, but not 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, an output schema (so return values need not be described), and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the destructive semantics and fx grammar but leaves 'at' and 'volume_db' unaddressed. Adequate but with a clear gap in the parameter surface.

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 across 6 params. It explains fx thoroughly (list, or 'bus:<name>'/'track:<name>' copy syntax from project.json) and clarifies remove=True, but says nothing about 'at' (default 'now') or 'volume_db', leaving two parameters entirely undocumented in both schema and text.

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 ('Create or change a send bus') and immediately defines the concept with a concrete example ('one hall for many tracks'). An agent can distinguish it from generic siblings like bus_add and fx_add. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the similarly-named bus_add sibling, so 5 is not warranted.

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 shows the intended integration path ('tracks feed it with live_track(sends={bus: dB})') and notes remove=True deletes it, which implies usage. However, it never states when to prefer this over the sibling bus_add or when not to use it, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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