setup_sidechain

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it creates aux sends, adjusts channel counts, finds or adds compressors, pin-maps sidechain inputs, and configures compressor parameters. It also clarifies how 'amount' translates to threshold/ratio when not explicit, and lists return values.

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 well-structured with a summary, bulleted use cases, and detailed parameter explanations. While it is somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value. Slightly more conciseness could be achieved by combining some arg descriptions, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists return keys. All 10 parameters are documented with sensible defaults. The tool is complex (10 params, 2 required), but the description covers setup steps, use cases, and parameter interactions, leaving no major gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 has 0% description coverage (no property descriptions), so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: each parameter is explained with its role, default values, units, and how they interact (e.g., 'ratio: 0 = derive from amount'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 it sets up sidechain compression with 'source pumps/ducks the target.' It explains the specific actions (aux send, channel setup, compressor configuration) and distinguishes from sibling tools like setup_parallel_compression and setup_drum_bus by focusing on sidechain routing and pumping character.

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 provides concrete use cases (e.g., EDM kick → bass, vocal lead → pad) that imply when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative methods (e.g., manual sidechain routing). The examples are helpful but leave some ambiguity about exclusions.

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