mixer_hpf_enable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool enables a high-pass filter but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is instantaneous, if it can be toggled repeatedly, whether it conflicts with other filters, or if any side effects occur. This lack of detail leaves agents uncertain about the tool's operational impact.

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 single sentence stating the purpose, followed by a brief parameter description. No redundant information, every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers the essential: what it does and what the parameter means. It lacks some behavioral context (e.g., could it be called when filter is already enabled?), but with the output schema, agents can infer return value structure. It is almost fully adequate for a simple enable/disable 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It does so by explaining the 'freq' parameter as 'Cutoff frequency in Hz' with an example ('80.0 removes low rumble'), which adds units and context beyond the schema's bare number type. However, it could be improved by specifying acceptable ranges or default behavior.

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 enables a high-pass filter on the master output, using a specific verb ('Enable') and resource ('high-pass filter on the master output'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like mixer_hpf_disable and mixer_lpf_enable by specifying the filter type and action.

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 for removing low frequencies (via the example 'removes low rumble'), but does not explicitly provide when to use or not use this tool vs alternatives like mixer_lpf_enable or mixer_hpf_disable. No exclusions or context are given, so the agent must infer usage.

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