add_realtime_effect

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

With no annotations available, the description carries full behavioral burden and delivers: it discloses non-destructiveness, adjustability, removability, live GUI access, and a concrete failure mode when passing a title instead of a Plugin ID. This significantly exceeds the bare 'add effect' meaning.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful comparison, then compact parameter guidance. Every sentence adds practical value, including the confirmed live failure note, with no filler or repetition.

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 action tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers purpose, target selection, effect ID provenance, common pitfall, and relationship to alternatives. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is left undocumented.

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 0%, but the description compensates thoroughly: track_id is sourced from project_get_info with -2 reserved for the Master bus, and effect_id is explicitly the list_effects 'id' field, not 'title', with a confirmed failure example. This is exactly the semantic detail the schema lacks.

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 and resource: it adds a non-destructive realtime effect to a track's or the Master bus's effect chain. It explicitly differentiates itself from apply-effect/effect_* tools, making its purpose unambiguous relative to siblings.

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?

It clearly contrasts with apply-effect/effect_* tools by noting this effect stays adjustable and removable, and it references the realtime effects panel workflow. This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate and which alternatives are for different behavior.

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