mixer_set_eq_band

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

The description lists parameters and ranges but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or affects other bands. Since no annotations are present, the description should provide more context about side effects or persistence.

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 with two sentences. It front-loads the action and parameter details, wasting no words.

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 simple (4 params, no output schema). The description covers all inputs acceptably with ranges. It does not describe return values but for a setter that is acceptable. Overall, it is almost complete for the tool's complexity.

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. The description adds meaningful semantics for 'band' (low/mid/high), 'gain' (-1..1), and 'frequency' (0..1 normalized). However, 'track' is not explained, leaving a gap.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'one band of the mixer EQ'. It also distinguishes the band indices (0|1|2) and parameter ranges, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. Sibling tools like mixer_get_eq or mixer_set_volume are clearly different.

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 setting a single EQ band but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mixer_get_eq (for reading) or mixer_fx_slots (for FX). No when-not or exclusions are provided.

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