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 discloses the created effects (Revamp EQ, Compressor, optional Waveshaper) and says it returns effect indices and parameter values. However, it does not mention if it overwrites existing effects, whether changes are reversible, or any required permissions.

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: purpose, benefit, parameter details, output comment, and examples. Every sentence is informative, and the overall length is appropriate without redundancy.

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 has 3 parameters (none required), no annotations, and an output schema (not provided but described). The description covers the effect chain, parameter details, use cases, and examples, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, so the description fully documents all three parameters: `unit_index` (target audio unit), `style` (with detailed preset descriptions for deep, round, driven, clean, tight), and `drive_amount` (range 0-1, default 0, usage advice). Examples show typical values. 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 'Add a ready-made bass processing chain to an audio unit' and specifies the exact effect chain (EQ → Compressor → optional Waveshaper). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like `add_effect` by noting it replaces multiple individual calls.

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 explains that the tool replaces 2-3 individual `add_effect` and `set_effect_parameter` calls and is designed for bass tracks but works on any low-frequency content. It provides examples but does not explicitly state when to avoid using it (e.g., for custom chains).

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