create_bus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the post-fader routing behavior, but says nothing about what happens to the tracks' existing master sends, whether existing routing is altered or destroyed, required permissions, or error behavior when a track reference is invalid.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon separating the action from its purpose; the routing explanation earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should shoulder more of the behavioral load. It covers purpose and routing well but omits the return value, the effect on pre-existing sends, and failure modes for a 4-parameter mutation 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 description coverage is 100%, so name, tracks, fx, and color are already documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Creates a submix bus') and adds the routing semantics that define a bus — tracks send post-fader to it instead of the master. It does not, however, distinguish this from conceptually adjacent siblings like create_folder or set_send, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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 implies the use case (grouping tracks so they can be processed and leveled together) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives such as create_folder or set_send. Usage is left to inference from the concept.

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