audio_linked_stereo_eq_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the validation requirement ('each channel must pass held-out validation independently'), which is a useful behavioral trait, but it does not describe what the tool returns (output format), what side effects occur (if any), whether it blocks for validation, or what happens on failure. For a complex tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and specifies the core validation constraint. It is concise and avoids fluff, but the density might obscure key details. Still, it earns points for efficiency and clarity of the primary action.

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?

With 16 parameters, only 3 required, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation in the description, the tool is grossly under-specified. An agent cannot determine what inputs are critical, how to structure them, what the tool returns, or what distinguishes a successful call from a failed one. The description covers only a fraction of the information needed to use this tool 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%, meaning parameter names like 'maxQ', 'lowHz', 'regularization', and 'maxSpatialSpreadDb' are not self-explanatory. The description does not define any of these parameters or explain their roles. It only mentions 'linked filter centers' and 'bounded left/right gain differences' at a high level, leaving the agent to guess which parameters control these behaviors. This is a severe deficiency.

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') and a clear resource ('regularized per-channel EQ with linked filter centers and bounded left/right gain differences'), and it adds a validation constraint. This distinguishes it from generic EQ tools, though it doesn't name an alternative sibling. It is specific enough for an agent to grasp the core function.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus other EQ planning or design tools in the sibling list (e.g., audio_eq_design_plan, audio_filter_export_plan). It implies a use case through its constraints but never explicitly states when it should be selected or what scenarios it is not for.

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