setup_effect_bus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool creates a bus atomically but does not detail error conditions, idempotency, side effects, or response format. The parameter descriptions are basic, and behavioral traits like creation validation or overwrite behavior are omitted.

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: a one-sentence summary followed by a clear parameter list. Every line adds value, and the structure (Args:) is standard and easy to parse. No redundant or vague statements.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (errors, return value, side effects). For a tool creating a bus, missing info on idempotency and what happens if bus_name conflicts reduces completeness.

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 adds significant meaning by explaining each parameter (e.g., fx_chain format reference, sends_from JSON structure, bus_position meaning). This compensates well for the schema gap, though some parameters could benefit from more detail (e.g., bus_color default empty string).

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 tool creates an effect return bus combining track, FX, and sends in one call. The verb 'Create' is specific, and the resource 'effect return bus' is distinct from sibling tools like setup_fx_chain (only FX) or setup_routing (only routing).

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like setup_drum_bus or setup_fx_chain. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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