load_instrument_or_effect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not disclose side effects, such as whether the track's existing devices are replaced or if the load fails, nor does it describe how errors are reported. It only states what it does, which is minimal transparency 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 concise and to the point. It starts with a clear one-sentence summary, then lists parameters with brief explanations and an example. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool is relatively simple with only two parameters and an output schema present (has output schema: true). However, the description does not explain what the output schema entails, nor does it mention potential failure conditions or how to obtain valid URIs. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or typical usage flow, which could be helpful.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly explains both parameters: track_index as 1-based track number and uri with an example format. This adds critical meaning beyond the raw schema, which only provides names and types. The example URI clarifies the expected format.

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's purpose: 'Load an instrument or effect onto a track using its URI.' It specifies the action (load), the object (instrument/effect), and the target (a track). It distinguishes from siblings like 'load_external_plugin' and 'load_drum_kit' by generically handling instrument/effect URIs, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from them.

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 usage context: it is for loading instruments or effects onto tracks using URI, which are typically obtained from browser tools (like get_browser_tree or get_browser_items_at_path). It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like load_external_plugin or load_drum_kit, but the phrase 'instrument or effect' gives some clarity. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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