remove_fx

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already flags this as a destructive operation, and the description's 'Removes' is consistent with it. The description adds the contextual detail that the FX is removed from a track's chain, but discloses nothing further about side effects (e.g., whether remaining FX positions shift, or reversibility). With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentence with the verb and object front-loaded and zero waste. Appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 simple destructive removal tool with fully documented params and a destructiveHint annotation, the description conveys enough for correct invocation. Minor gaps in side-effect disclosure keep it from a 5.

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 both parameters (fx position/name, track number/name/'master') are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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?

The description states a clear verb+resource ('Removes an FX from a track's chain'), which is specific and distinguishable from add_fx and update_fx by name alone. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, 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?

The description says only what the tool does, not when to use it versus alternatives like update_fx or delete_track, nor any prerequisites. There is no exclusion or routing guidance, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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