add_vocal_chain

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the exact chain created, the automatic-vs-manual split depending on plugin choice, and the caveat that it is a tweakable starting point. It does not state idempotency, whether re-running duplicates FX, or what is returned, leaving some mutation-tool gaps.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what gets built before the conditional-plugin detail and the scope caveat. Every sentence carries information; only slight density cost from the semicolon-laden last line.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is created and how configuration differs by plugin, which is the bulk of what an agent needs. It omits any mention of return values or failure/idempotency behavior, a minor gap for a creative convenience tool.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents eq, compressor, track, and reverb_send_db. The description adds the meaningful behavioral note that eq/compressor overrides change whether the chain is auto-configured, but says nothing about the 'character' enum values or reverb_send_db, so it only marginally exceeds the schema.

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 a vocal chain to a track) and enumerates its contents: high-pass and tone EQ, then a compressor. It also distinguishes itself from generic siblings by noting it is a 'starting point' rather than a full mixing tool, and it explicitly names 'no de-esser' as a scope boundary.

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?

Gives clear context: with REAPER's ReaEQ/ReaComp it is configured automatically, whereas with other plugins the FX are added and the user must call set_fx_parameters to configure them. That routes the agent to a sibling in the non-default case. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of add_fx when...' rule, so not a 5.

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