set_eq_band

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

Beyond the minimal annotation (destructiveHint: false), the description discloses important behavioral details: gain is converted internally to normalized curve while freq and Q are sent raw, and is_normalized allows raw values. This adds value. However, it does not mention side effects, error conditions, or return values, which would be useful for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, then a compact arg list. It is concise without being sparse, and the front-loaded purpose makes it easy to parse. Every line adds useful information.

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 7 parameters and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to document track_index, provides no return value or error information, and does not mention any side effects. While it explains the parameter logic well, the missing required parameter and lack of outcome details leave the agent underinformed.

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?

The description explains six of seven parameters in detail, including enums for bandtype and paramtype and units for value. However, it completely omits track_index, which is a required parameter. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, and missing a required parameter is a significant gap.

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 the action (set a ReaEQ band parameter) and enumerates the parameter types and band types, making it distinct from sibling tools like set_eq_band_enabled. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous, even though track_index is not mentioned, the core purpose is clear.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to adjust frequency, gain, or Q on a ReaEQ band) and implicitly indicates it is not for enabling/disabling bands (a separate sibling). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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