mixer_effect_add

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the mutation (adds an effect) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether effects are appended or replaced, error handling for invalid effect types, or permissions required. The example effect types give some context but not enough.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single clear purpose statement and a compact parameter list. No redundant sentences or fluff. Each part serves a purpose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks details about return values, prerequisites, error handling, and side effects. The tool is simple (2 params) but still could benefit from notes on group existence or effect type validity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides useful information: target is 'Group path or {guid}' and effect lists example types. However, it does not specify the exact format of a group path or whether the effect types are exhaustive. It adds some meaning beyond the bare schema but is incomplete.

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 clearly states the action ('Add an effect') and the target resource ('group's effect chain'). It distinguishes from siblings like mixer_effect_list (which lists effects) and other group operations. The verb and resource are specific.

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 usage context is implied by the description and sibling tools (e.g., this is for adding, mixer_effect_list is for listing), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., group must exist). No exclusions or fallback suggestions are mentioned.

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