vca_create

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full weight. It does a good job explaining side-effect behavior ('scales every mixer strip assigned to it'), which is the core VCA mechanic. However, it omits other behavioral details like whether the VCA is persisted immediately, whether the name must be unique, or what happens on invalid names.

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?

Efficient single-sentence explanation that front-loads the key concept with a useful analogy and concrete examples. The trailing Args block is slightly redundant with the schema but costs only one line.

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 single-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the domain context provided is strong and mostly sufficient. The gap is that it never discloses what a successful call returns (e.g., a row id, a name), what a duplicate name does, or whether this is immediately reversible — leaving the agent to guess the contract.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but the Args section ('name: VCA name') adds almost nothing beyond the schema's 'Name' string. It omits constraints like uniqueness requirements, character limits, or formats — precisely the detail that would justify low schema coverage.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Create a VCA' with an excellent plain-language explanation of the domain concept ('a volume control that scales every mixer strip assigned to it'). The parenthetical examples ('Music', 'SFX', 'Voice') make the purpose concrete and distinguish this from siblings like vca_assign and vca_volume.

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 conveys the intended use case (grouping several buses under one fader) and gives concrete examples, which implies when to use it. However, it never explicitly mentions alternatives (e.g., mixer_group_create or vca_assign) or states when NOT to use it, which matters given the large sibling list.

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