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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the algorithmic steps, the fact that it outputs a new WAV file, and labels stereo matching as 'experimental.' It doesn't mention whether the original mix is preserved or if any DAW-specific prerequisites exist, but the core behavior (gain, EQ, stereo adjustments) is transparently explained.

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 efficient: a one-sentence summary, numbered algorithmic steps, a parameter list, return description, and an example. Each section earns its place without redundancy. The formatting with line breaks and code-style example enhances readability.

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?

The description covers the essential: purpose, process, parameters, output, and return value, even including an example return object. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., DAW engine running, supported file formats) and edge-case behavior, but given the presence of an output schema and the tool's focused scope, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates admirably by explaining each parameter: filename, reference, output_filename (with default), and the three boolean toggles with their effects (e.g., 'Match per-band spectral energy (7-band EQ correction)'). It also provides a concrete example call with expected return shape, fully clarifying parameter semantics.

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-resource statement: 'Automatically match your mix to a reference track — spectral + loudness alignment.' It then details three concrete processing steps (LUFS gain, EQ correction, optional stereo adjustment) and states the output is a matched WAV. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_to_reference, which likely only analyzes without modifying.

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 clearly implies usage for automated A/B matching without re-mixing, and explicitly mentions optional stereo matching. It also references 'Like Phantom's match_to_reference' as a conceptual precedent. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., compare_to_reference for analysis-only) or state when NOT to use it, leaving a small gap in exclusions.

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