effect_equalization

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'apply EQ curve' – a mutation – but doesn't mention whether it's destructive, whether a selection is required, whether it affects the entire clip, or describe any side effects. This is a significant omission for a processing 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 very brief, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. It front-loads the purpose but repeats parameter defaults that are already in the schema, and lacks substance. No unnecessary verbosity, but also no valuable detail.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to cover important context: what happens if no audio is selected, what curve presets are available, how the filter length affects sound, and whether the operation is undoable. An agent would have to guess before invoking it.

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 adds meaning for both parameters: length is specified as an odd number in range 21–8191, and curve_name is identified as a preset name. However, it doesn't list valid curve names or explain how length affects the result. Partial compensation but not complete.

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 states a clear action ('Apply') and target ('EQ curve' to selected audio). It distinguishes from other effects like high-pass/low-pass filters by naming 'EQ curve' specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like raw_graphic_eq.

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 is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or that it should be used instead of other EQ-related tools. The description is entirely silent on usage conditions.

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