set_eq_band_enabled

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a mutation but omits permissions, side effects, return behavior, and required track context, leaving significant gaps for a state-changing operation.

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 definition is front-loaded with purpose and then a compact Args list; no sentence is wasted. However, the Args list is incomplete because track_index is missing, which slightly weakens the structure.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is incomplete. It lacks prerequisites, return or side-effect details, alternative-tool guidance, and documentation for required track_index.

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 usefully documents fx_index as 0-based, bandtype mappings, bandidx, and enabled, but completely omits required track_index, leaving one of five parameters unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (enable or disable) and resource (ReaEQ band), distinguishing it from read-only get_eq_band_enabled and broader set_eq_band by focusing only on the enabled state.

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?

No when/when-not guidance or alternative routing is provided; usage is only implied by the tool name. It does not mention prerequisites such as needing an existing ReaEQ instance or how it relates to set_eq_band and get_eq_band_enabled.

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