audio_eq_design_plan

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It reveals that the proposal is 'hash-bound' (likely deterministic) and 'cut-only' (no boosts), and that it involves training on stable traces and validation on withheld traces. However, it omits side effects, required inputs lifecycle, failure modes, or whether it is a pure computation or has side effects like saving data.

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 sentence with no fluff, but it is dense and jargon-heavy. It front-loads the core action but leaves the reader to parse domain-specific terms. Concise but not necessarily clear to an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what inputs are needed, what the output will look like, or what 'hash-bound' and 'cut-only' imply for the result. The tool is likely part of a complex workflow but the description does not provide enough context to use it correctly.

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% and the description gives no explanation of any of the 13 parameters (e.g., maxQ, lowHz, highHz, maxCutDb, deviceClass). The parameters like minCorrectionDb, validationCount, or maxSpatialSpreadDb remain completely unexplained, so an agent cannot infer their meaning or required values.

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 ('Create'), a resource ('EQ proposal'), and key constraints ('hash-bound', 'cut-only', 'trained on stable traces', 'checked against withheld traces'). This distinguishes it from generic EQ tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like audio_eq_proposal to make differentiation explicit.

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 such as audio_eq_proposal, audio_filter_export_plan, or other planning tools. The description implies a training/validation workflow but does not state prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.

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