Configurar una banda de ReaEQ

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations by specifying that it configures an existing band (not creating one) and that it returns state. This complements the idempotent and non-destructive hints, though it does not detail side effects or error behavior.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and its output, with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple statement of purpose.

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 9 parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks context on how to target the ReaEQ instance, what the return state includes, and any prerequisites like adding the stock FX first. The output schema reduces need to describe return values, but the description still fails to convey essential usage context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only mentions band type and index, leaving the roles of frequency_hz, gain_db, q, enabled, and targeting parameters (project_ref, track_guid, fx_guid) unexplained. The agent must rely on parameter names alone, which is insufficient for a complex 9-parameter tool.

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 clearly states that the tool configures an existing band by type and index, and returns its state. This is a specific action with a clear resource (band), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like configure_reacomp by focusing on band-level EQ configuration.

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 when configuring an existing band, and the word 'existing' provides an implicit exclusion (not for creating new bands). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or prerequisites such as needing a ReaEQ instance, so guidance is limited.

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