vca_assign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool tries a couple of plausible assignment names and raises a clear error instead of silently doing nothing. It also explains the effect on the VCA's fader. It doesn't mention permissions or reversibility, but the error-handling behavior is a meaningful disclosure.

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?

Three short paragraphs: a clear purpose sentence, a brief note on error handling, and an Args section. No redundancy; each sentence adds unique value.

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 explains the operation, parameter formats, and error behavior. It lacks an explicit mention of return value (though no output schema exists, so not required). Given the simple two-parameter assignment tool, this is sufficiently 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?

The input schema only provides type: string with no descriptions. The description compensates by defining both parameters: vca_target is a 'vca:/ path or {guid}' and strip_target is a 'Mixer group/bus path or {guid} to assign.' This gives the agent the format and semantics needed.

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: 'Assign a mixer strip (group/bus) to a VCA' and explains the effect ('the VCA's fader scales it alongside every other strip assigned to it'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vca_create or vca_volume, as assignment is a unique operation.

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 implies when to use: when you want to attach a mixer strip to a VCA. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose clearly distinguishes it from other VCA/mixer tools. The note about FMOD's ambiguous docs provides context on the tool's approach, though no direct comparison to siblings.

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