rew_audio_configure_plan

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses two useful traits: calibration preservation and hash-binding. However, it does not reveal side effects (e.g., file writes), preconditions (e.g., REW installation), or whether the operation is reversible. These gaps limit an agent's ability to predict outcomes.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action and adds a key constraint. There is no filler or redundancy, making it appropriately concise.

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?

This is a planning tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain how the plan is returned, how the hash works, or how to use the plan later. It also omits any prerequisites. For such a specialized tool, the description is incomplete for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it does not. The phrase 'input/output configuration' is too vague to clarify the meaning of individual parameters like inputDevice, outputChannel, or sampleRateHz. The description adds no specific 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 verb 'create' and the resource 'REW input/output configuration plan', and adds a specific qualifier 'hash-bound' and a preservation condition. This distinguishes it from execution tools like rew_audio_configure_execute, so an agent can understand its planning role.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention that this plan precedes execution, nor does it reference prerequisites like device inventory. The planning/execution distinction is only implied by the word 'plan'.

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