add_fx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuine trait beyond the schema: the result includes plugin behavior info for plugins creaper recognizes (relevant since there is no output schema). It omits failure modes, permission/install prerequisites, and side effects on the existing chain, which is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The trailing clause about 'how they work' is slightly vague but still earns its place by hinting at return content.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it never addresses what happens on a failed/ambiguous plugin name or how it interacts with the existing FX chain. Full schema coverage offsets some of this, making it minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents track, fx_name, position, and show in detail, including the 'master' value. The description's 'use master for the master bus' merely restates the track parameter's schema text, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 ('Adds a plugin to a track's FX chain') that clearly separates it from siblings like remove_fx, update_fx, and set_fx_parameter. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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 parenthetical tells the agent how to target the master bus, which is a useful targeting cue, but there is no when-to-use guidance relative to add_vocal_chain, add_parallel_compression, or apply_track_template, and no when-not or prerequisite statement (e.g., that the plugin must be installed). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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