map_mix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the gain-pull measurement method, the live-loop requirement, and the job-based execution with one capture per track. It does not state whether the 12dB pulls are permanent or reverted, which is a minor 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?

Three dense, informative sentences: method and purpose first, prerequisite second, execution model third. No filler and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the output schema provides return shape, the description supplies the needed context: why to run it, what it does, what must be true before running, and how it executes. The missing parameter documentation is the only notable incompleteness.

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% and the description never mentions 'seconds' or 'only_tracks'. The agent cannot infer valid values, units, or track-selection semantics from the tool text, so this is a significant gap even though both parameters are optional.

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 diagnostic procedure: determine which track owns each band by pulling each track down 12dB and re-measuring the master. This is much more precise than a generic 'map mix' and differentiates it from measurement siblings.

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 clearly says this is needed before the planner can correct the low-end curve, and it explicitly requires Live to be playing with the loop brace on. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the invocation context is clear.

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