add_audio_bus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the action without any side effects. It does not mention whether the layout file is modified in-place, what happens if the bus already exists, whether missing files are created, or error conditions. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler words, making it appropriately front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices informative content, but conciseness itself is achieved.

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?

This is a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description is only one short sentence. It fails to explain the concept of 'layout', the purpose of parameters beyond schema names, how the tool integrates with other audio bus operations, or what result to expect. The description is far from sufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (bus_name, send_to, volume_db, layout_path). The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Add audio bus to layout' has a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('audio bus') targeting a layout, making the core purpose clear. It is distinct from siblings like create_audio_bus_layout and add_bus_effect, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify whether it modifies an existing layout or creates one implicitly.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing audio bus layout, nor does it distinguish when to use add_audio_bus instead of create_audio_bus_layout or set_bus_volume.

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