mixer_lpf_enable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the effect (enable low-pass filter) and the freq parameter, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., does it disable high-pass?), permissions, or state changes.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose and parameter. No wasted words, front-loads the primary 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?

For a simple enable command with one parameter, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and the parameter. However, it does not mention the output schema (exists but not described) or whether the filter state is persistent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the freq parameter. The description adds meaning: 'Cutoff frequency in Hz (e.g. 8000.0 softens the high end).' This compensates well for the missing schema description.

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 low-pass filter on the master output, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mixer_hpf_enable (high-pass) and mixer_lpf_disable.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where other filters should be used instead.

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