audio_post_eq_verification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a decision action but does not state whether it is read-only, what side effects exist, how results are returned, or what criteria trigger accepted vs. rejected outcomes beyond the parameter names.

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, concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. No fluff, but it lacks detail that would make it more useful without sacrificing conciseness.

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 14 parameters, 8 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the accept/reject logic, how to set thresholds, required relationships between before/after entries, or how to interpret results. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its 14 parameters, and the description only gives a high-level overview. It hints at concepts like 'level match' and 'repeatability' but does not explain specific parameters (e.g., beforeControlFingerprint, minimumTonalImprovementDb) or how they interact, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's function: accept or reject an EQ based on before/after traces, fingerprints, level match, and quality gates. It names the specific mechanism and is distinct from sibling tools that focus on measurement or planning, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 other verification or proposal tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions for acceptance, or when to prefer this over siblings like audio_eq_proposal or audio_multisource_optimize.

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