add_fx

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether adding an FX replaces existing ones, whether it is reversible, requires any permissions, or has side effects. The bare statement 'Add an FX to a track' reveals nothing beyond the name.

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?

The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks critical details about parameters and behavior, making it inefficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one provides minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to specify fx_name (e.g., from get_available_fx_list), whether track_index is zero-based, or any error conditions. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing parameter semantics and usage context.

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?

The input schema has 2 parameters (fx_name, track_index) with 0% description coverage. The description provides no additional meaning for these parameters—it doesn't clarify expected formats, valid values, or indexing conventions. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, but it completely fails to do so.

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 uses a clear verb ('Add') and specifies the resource ('FX') and target ('track'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_fx, toggle_fx, and set_fx_param by clearly indicating a creation/insertion action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites, parameter selection, or behavior in edge cases. It simply states the action without usage conditions or exclusions.

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