osc_set_eq

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this is a destructive write operation, what permissions are needed, whether changes are immediate or require confirmation, or what happens on error. For a parameter-setting tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for this type of parameter-setting tool and front-loads the essential 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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the gain (e.g., confirmation, error handling), doesn't mention side effects, and provides no context about the broader EQ system. Given the complexity of audio mixing and multiple sibling EQ tools, more guidance is needed.

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 100%, with all three parameters well-documented in the schema (channel number range 1-32, EQ band 1-4, gain range -15 to +15 dB). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 EQ gain') and target ('for a channel band'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_set_eq_frequency', 'osc_set_eq_on', or 'osc_set_eq_q', which all modify EQ parameters for channels.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or how this differs from other EQ-related tools like 'osc_set_eq_frequency' or 'osc_get_eq'.

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