Set Fairlight Master EQ Band

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

Annotations already declare idempotency, non-destructiveness, and a closed world, so the description needed to add context such as whether omitted optional params leave existing band values untouched, whether a connection is required, or how partial updates are handled. It adds none of that – the body is a restatement of the schema parameter ranges. It does not contradict the annotations (setting EQ values is a non-destructive mutation), but it contributes almost no behavioral disclosure.

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 two opening sentences are well front-loaded and earn their place, but the seven-line Args block repeats parameter names, types, ranges, and enum values that the 100%-covered schema already provides. Roughly half the text is redundant with structured fields.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers what changes (a master EQ band) but omits whether the call requires a live connection, how partial updates interact with existing band state, and what the result reports. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining gaps are moderate rather than fatal.

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 100% and both enums are documented in the schema, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics; the baseline of 3 applies. The description's args block largely duplicates the schema, with the only marginal addition being the '6-band layout' note tying band index 0-5 to an EQ band structure.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Set an EQ band on the Fairlight master output'), and the follow-up 'Same 6-band layout as input EQ' implicitly separates it from the sibling atem_set_fairlight_eq that touches input channels. The master-vs-input distinction is real but conveyed indirectly through a reference rather than by naming the sibling tool.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions that route the agent to atem_set_fairlight_eq (input), atem_set_fairlight_eq_preset, or atem_reset_fairlight_eq, and no prerequisite such as requiring an active connection. The agent must infer the usage context from the tool name and the passing mention of input EQ.

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