Recommend a guitar tone chain

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no further explanation. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the result depends on whether TONE3000 is 'configured,' routing is capture-aware, and the rig includes gain staging and cab advice. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact sentence with the main verb and scope front-loaded. Each listed element adds information about what the recommendation will contain; there is no filler. The only weakness is jargon like 'capture-aware routing' and 'when configured' that compresses too much.

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 tool with six parameters, a required target, and an output schema, the description is not complete enough to invoke correctly: it never explains what `target` means, what 'configured' refers to, or how this recommendation tool relates to the sibling search/troubleshoot tools. Although the output schema covers the return shape, input semantics and tool-selection context remain underspecified.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only hints at preferredWorkflow ('TONE3000-focused, AmpliTube-only, or hybrid') and starting settings. The required `target` parameter is never defined, and `tuning`, `guitarType`, `pickupType`, and `desiredGain` receive no added meaning.

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 concrete action — 'Build a practical ... rig' — and enumerates what that rig includes: capture-aware routing, starting settings, cab advice, gain staging, and live TONE3000 candidates. It is clear that this is a recommendation/construction tool rather than a search, get, or troubleshoot tool, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish itself.

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 wording makes it clear the tool is for assembling an entire rig, which implies use when a user wants a full recommendation rather than a component search. However, the description never provides explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, such as 'use search_tone3000 if you need a specific tone.'

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