set_eq_band_enabled

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

The description accurately states the mutation: toggling a ReaEQ band's enabled state. Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It adds the core behavior but does not discuss side effects, requirements, or error conditions; for a simple state setter this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary followed by a compact argument list. It wastes no words, though the argument list's omission of track_index is a structural gap that prevents a perfect score.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is not complete enough. It fails to document the required track_index parameter and provides no context about how to identify the correct ReaEQ instance or what happens if the band type/index is invalid. An agent could easily make an incorrect call.

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 adds useful meaning for fx_index, bandtype (with the 0-5 enum), bandidx, and enabled. However, it omits track_index entirely, which is a required parameter, leaving that parameter's meaning to be inferred solely from its name.

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: 'Enable or disable a ReaEQ band.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_eq_band_enabled (read state) and set_eq_band (adjust band parameters), so an agent can infer the core action without opening the schema.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus related tools, nor are prerequisites mentioned such as the track needing a ReaEQ instance or how to locate one with find_eq. The operation is implied by the name and description, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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