suggest_and_add_effect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and meets it well. It discloses the search scope (all actually-installed, realtime-capable effects), the matching heuristic (category keywords against title/vendor, since VST3 categories report 'None'), the soft preference via _PREFERRED_VENDORS, and the fact that alternatives are returned to avoid a black box.

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 workflow and then adds necessary implementation caveats, all in compact paragraphs. The Args section is structured and adds information that the schema lacks; no sentence is 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?

The description gives the agent enough to select and call the tool correctly, including parameter sourcing and behavior of the suggestion logic. The only gap is the absence of an output schema and only a vague statement that 'alternatives' are returned, without specifying the exact response shape or no-match behavior.

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 only gives property names and types (0% description coverage), so the tool description must supply semantics. It does: track_id is tied to project_get_info's track list with -2 reserved for Master, and category lists all 11 accepted values.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Find a good installed effect ... and add it as a realtime effect') and labels the workflow ('pick the right plugin for me'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_realtime_effect or list_effects, which either require an already-chosen effect or only enumerate available effects.

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 establishes when to use this tool: the user has a stated goal or category but not a particular plugin, and the tool searches installed realtime effects for them. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools to use when the exact effect is already known, though that contrast is inferable from the sibling list.

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