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

With no annotations, the description explains what it creates (Revamp EQ → Compressor → Waveshaper), returns effect indices and parameter values, and describes the drive_amount range. However, it doesn't disclose whether it appends to or replaces existing effects on the target unit, which is a notable gap.

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 and appropriately sized: it starts with the core function, then covers parameters in a clear list, states what it creates and returns, and finishes with practical examples. Every sentence adds value with no repetition.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, return values, examples, and relationship to alternatives. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the tool description fully compensates: unit_index is explained, style lists all five presets with musical characteristics, and drive_amount includes range, default, and usage guidance. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool adds a ready-made bass processing chain (EQ → Compressor + optional Waveshaper) to an audio unit. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the explicit chain structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_effect or add_mastering_chain.

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?

It explicitly says 'One call replaces 2-3 individual add_effect + set_effect_parameter calls,' naming the alternative. It also notes it's designed for bass but works on any low-frequency content, giving clear context for when to use it.

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