audio_multisource_physical_optimize

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only mentions bounded search and held-out verification. It does not state whether the tool mutates audio settings, is read-only, returns a report, or has important performance/state effects; 'physical' is also unexplained.

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 with no filler, front-loading the action and key constraints. The hyphenated jargon 'Coordinate-search' and piled-up modifiers hurt readability slightly, but it remains economical.

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 six-parameter tool with nested arrays, no output schema, and no annotations, one high-level sentence is insufficient. Missing are return value/format, side effects, relationship to audio_multisource_optimize, and the meaning of 'physical', so an agent cannot confidently predict the tool's full behavior.

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%, yet the description offers only high-level concepts such as gain, delay, polarity, crossover, training seats, and held-out verification. It does not clarify the required targets and frequenciesHz, matrix orientation, unit conventions, or how constraints map to the optimization, so it only partially compensates for 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 names a specific behavior: coordinate-searching over gain, delay, polarity, and crossover controls, with held-out verification. This identifies the tool's resource and purpose and loosely distinguishes it from the simpler-sounding sibling audio_multisource_optimize, though it never explains what 'physical' adds.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'across training seats with held-out verification'—an agent can infer this is for multi-seat optimization with validation. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of audio_multisource_optimize or other alternatives, leaving routing partly to inference.

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