mixer_send_create

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

With no annotations, the description itself conveys key behavior: it creates a return track plus send, is per-event only, and notes that event_target owns both the source group and the new return. It also discloses level range and default. Minor gaps remain around error/return behavior, but core side effects are transparent.

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 two-sentence overview plus a tight argument list. The 'shared reverb bus' example earns its place by clarifying intent, and there is no filler or repetition of schema titles.

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 covers action, scope, all parameter meanings, and the optional parameter's default/range, so an agent can invoke it correctly without additional documentation. Because there is no output schema or annotations, a short note about expected response/error behavior would make it fully complete.

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?

All four parameters are described in plain language, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. It includes accepted path/GUID formats, ownership semantics, the meaning of return_name, and the range/default for level_db.

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 states a specific action: 'Create a return track + send within one event's mixer' and gives a concrete use case ('shared reverb bus'). The 'Per-event only — no cross-event/global send here' clause distinguishes it from broader send/routing operations.

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 explicitly scopes use to a single event's mixer and warns against expecting cross-event/global sends. It does not name an alternative tool for global sends, but the when-not guidance is clear enough for tool selection.

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