Fl Mixer Eq

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that omitting values performs a read operation, and it gives a gain mapping (0.5 = 0 dB). However, it lacks detail on side effects (e.g., immediate audio impact), error handling for out-of-range values, and the range for bandwidth and frequency. This is a partial 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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and value mapping. No redundant words, and it fits the essential information into a compact format.

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 5 parameters, including 2 required and 3 optional, the description covers only band and partially gain. It does not explain bandwidth, frequency, or the track parameter (though track is likely obvious). It also doesn't clarify the return format beyond the existence of an output schema. Given the absence of schema descriptions, this is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the band parameter (0/1/2 = low/mid/high) and gives a gain range (0-1) with a dB reference. However, it does not explain bandwidth or frequency at all, and the 0-1 range is ambiguous (likely applies to gain only but not stated). This leaves half the parameters undocumented.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as a built-in 3-band track EQ, specifies band-to-frequency mapping (0/1/2 = low/mid/high), and explains the value range. This distinguishes it from other mixer tools like fl_mixer_track_set or fl_mixer_send, which serve different purposes.

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 clear context that this is the built-in 3-band EQ for a track, implying when to use it for EQ adjustments. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident, making it sufficient for most agents.

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