audio_eq_proposal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'this never applies filters', signaling non-mutating behavior. It also says 'conservative cut-first', indicating a preference. However, it does not disclose whether it saves state, reads a trace by ID, or returns a specific structure—minor gaps given the read-only nature implied by 'proposal'.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The main purpose comes first, followed by a crucial behavioral note. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits explanations of most parameters (deviceClass, bands, lowHz, highHz, etc.) and does not describe the return format of the 'suggestions'. An agent would not know how to correctly set parameters or interpret the output, making it incomplete.

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 adds meaning for the trace ID ('from a live REW trace') and for boost/cut parameters ('cut-first' implies limits on boosts). Yet it does not explain 'deviceClass', 'bands', frequency ranges, or how maxCutDb/maxBoostDb interact. This is partial compensation, insufficient for full semantic understanding.

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 ('parametric EQ suggestions'), and a context ('from a live REW trace'), plus a key disambiguator ('never applies filters'). This clearly distinguishes it from filter-application tools like audio_eq_design_plan or audio_filter_export. The phrase 'conservative cut-first' adds further specificity.

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?

It implies usage (when you want suggestions rather than applied filters) via 'never applies filters', and 'from a live REW trace' hints at a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state conditions for choosing this over siblings. No 'use X instead' guidance is given, leaving some inference required.

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