Set band 0–2 gain, frequency, and width on a mixer track's built-in 3-band EQ to shape tone in a Lemon Studio project.
Set band 0..2 of mixer track track's built-in 3-band EQ: gain in dB (-18..18), frequency and width as
stored (0..65536).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| band | Yes | ||
| track | Yes | ||
| width | No | ||
| gain_db | No | ||
| frequency | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this mutates EQ gain/frequency/width and gives value ranges, but does not explain optional null behavior, whether omitted values remain unchanged, undoability, or failure conditions.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It efficiently packs the target resource, band range, and parameter ranges.
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 simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides enough information to call it correctly: target track, valid band range, and parameter ranges. The main remaining gap is how omitted or null optional parameters are treated.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully covers all five parameters: track, band 0..2, gain in dB (-18..18), and frequency/width as stored in 0..65536, though it does not clarify optional/null 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 states a specific verb and resource: setting one band of a mixer track's built-in 3-band EQ. It also names the track and band range, making it distinguishable from effect/plugin parameter tools in the sibling list.
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?
Usage is clearly scoped to a mixer track's built-in 3-band EQ rather than effects or plugins, which implicitly routes the agent away from set_effect, add_effect, and set_plugin_param. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.