set_eq_band

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavioral traits: gain is internally converted to ReaEQ's normalized curve while freq and Q are sent raw, and is_normalized=True writes a raw 0-1 value. It also notes that paramtype and bandidx are ignored for master gain. It does not cover error conditions or side effects, but the disclosure is substantial.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a short usage note and a structured Args list. It is appropriately sized for a 7-parameter tool and avoids fluff. There is minor redundancy between the default-value sentence and the value parameter entry, but overall it is efficient.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, 6 required, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers most necessary information but misses track_index entirely. It also does not explain how to obtain valid fx_index or band indices, nor does it mention any error handling. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 describes six of seven parameters in detail, including enum-like values for bandtype and paramtype, but completely omits track_index, a required parameter. This leaves a significant gap despite otherwise helpful parameter-level information.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set a ReaEQ band parameter.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from generic parameter setters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like set_eq_band_enabled or track_fx_set_param, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides practical guidance on how to pass values (real units by default, conversion behavior) but lacks any explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. It implies usage context through 'ReaEQ band parameter' but does not name alternative tools or conditions for choosing them.

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