raw_graphic_eq

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the tool 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is important side-effect context for an agent. It doesn't detail reversibility or permissions, but the core risk is surfaced clearly.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the purpose comes first, and the side-effect caveat follows immediately. Every phrase earns its place, and the essential information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter raw wrapper, the description covers purpose, no-argument behavior, and side-effect risk, which is a solid baseline. However, the instruction to 'inspect the command name first' hints at unresolved ambiguity about what the underlying command actually does, and with no output schema the agent must guess what result to expect.

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 zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there are no schema gaps to compensate for. The description reinforces the no-argument nature by calling it a 'no-argument Audacity action,' matching the expected baseline for parameterless tools.

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?

States a specific action ('Apply a graphic equalizer effect') and a target ('GraphicEq'), and clarifies it is a static no-argument Audacity action. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like effect_equalization, but the raw, no-argument framing narrows its role considerably.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is a cautinary note rather than usage direction, and there is no mention of when to prefer this tool over effect_equalization or other effect tools.

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