osc_set_eq_on

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this requires special permissions, what happens if EQ is already in the target state, whether changes are immediate or reversible, or if there are rate limits. For a mutation 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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that modifies state, more context is needed to use it safely and effectively.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('channel' with range 1-32 and 'on' as boolean). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what 'EQ' refers to or channel context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Enable or disable') and resource ('EQ for a channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'osc_set_eq' (which likely sets EQ parameters) and 'osc_set_eq_frequency' (which adjusts frequency), but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for toggling EQ on/off, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., channel must exist), when not to use it, or how it relates to other EQ tools like 'osc_set_eq' 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.