Set Fairlight EQ Preset

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety bar is pre-met. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: all six bands are overwritten in a single atomic operation, and 'flat' returns bands to 0 dB factory defaults, which tells the agent existing per-band settings will be replaced.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then a scannable preset list, then args. Every line carries usable information (preset semantics are the core value), though the frequency detail for 'vocal' is richer than strictly needed to select it.

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 two-parameter setter with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what changes, that all six bands are affected, what each preset targets, and how input indices map. No material gap remains.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: it explains what each enum value does acoustically (HP 80Hz, mud cut 400Hz, etc.) and clarifies that 'input' maps to camera numbering (1=Camera 1). That goes materially beyond the bare enum and 'Audio input number' schema text.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Apply a predefined EQ preset to a Fairlight audio input') and adds the key scope fact ('Sets all 6 bands at once'), which separates it from the manual per-band sibling. It does not name atem_set_fairlight_eq or atem_reset_fairlight_eq explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 preset catalogue lets an agent infer intent ('flat' resets, 'de_mud' fixes muddy audio), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this versus atem_set_fairlight_eq for manual band control or atem_reset_fairlight_eq for a reset. Usage is implied, not prescribed.

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