audio_dsp_apply_plan

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose safety, side effects, and process. It says 'preview and hash-bind' but never clarifies whether this mutates anything, whether it requires confirmation, or whether it is read-only. The phrase 'hash-bind' is jargon and unexplained, and 'exact' does not convey what happens to the file. An agent cannot infer the tool's behavioral profile.

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?

A single focused sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, and every word contributes to the purpose. Ideal brevity.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and zero annotations, the description is far too thin. It does not say what output the agent should expect (e.g., a plan, a hash, a confirmation), nor does it explain the process or any prerequisites. The 'plan' suffix suggests a planned action, but the description never states that it returns a plan for approval. Incomplete for reliable agent usage.

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 provide parameter context. It does not explain what 'adapter' means beyond echoing the enum values, and 'filters' is only loosely referenced as 'filter-file change'. The structure of the filters array (type PK, frequencyHz, gainDb, q) is entirely undocumented in the description. The description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 clear action ('Preview and hash-bind') and a specific resource ('an exact Equalizer APO or dedicated CamillaDSP filter-file change'). It distinguishes this from the sibling 'audio_dsp_apply_execute' by implying this is a plan/preview step, and names the two adapter types directly. No ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audio_dsp_apply_execute or audio_dsp_adapter_capabilities. It does not mention that it is a planning step or any conditions that would select it over executing directly. The distinction is only implicit in the name 'plan'.

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