osc_set_eq_q

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 'Set' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are immediate or require confirmation, potential side effects on audio output, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the Q factor, whether there's confirmation of success, what the expected impact on audio is, or how this interacts with other EQ parameters. Given the complexity of audio processing and the presence of many related EQ tools, more context 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter definitions (channel number, EQ band, Q factor with ranges). The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic information beyond what's already in the schema. It mentions the parameters generically but provides no additional context about their interaction or practical usage.

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') and target resource ('EQ Q factor for a channel band'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'osc_set_eq' or 'osc_set_eq_frequency', which also 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for EQ manipulation (e.g., 'osc_set_eq', 'osc_set_eq_frequency', 'osc_set_eq_on'), there's no indication of how this specific Q factor setting relates to broader EQ configuration or when it should be preferred over other tools.

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