setup_sidechain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it enumerates the compound steps (route source into target sidechain on channels 3/4, switch the compressor to listen, measure source, set sidechain level and ReaComp threshold). It does not disclose failure behavior, reversibility, or permission prerequisites, but the operational sequence is unusually well surfaced.

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 opens with the core purpose, then uses a colon and comma-separated steps to convey the workflow. No wasted filler, though the run-on list form is dense.

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 complex compound mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers the full workflow and the source/target roles. It lacks prerequisites, success/failure conditions, and side effects on existing compressor state, leaving minor gaps.

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 all five parameters (including the depth enum's dB values and the fx/compressor fallback logic) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the depth linkage to threshold but adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('sets up') and resource ('side-chain compression') and details the exact mechanism (routing to channels 3/4, alarming the compressor, measuring, setting depth). It is unambiguous what the tool does. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from siblings like add_parallel_compression or add_vocal_chain, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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 examples ('the kick', 'the bass or a pad') and 'in one go' imply the use case (ducking a bass/pad against a kick) but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. 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.