Calibrate Monitor SPL

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 does disclose the meaningful side effects: start emits pink noise through the monitors and engages a meter, and stop ends the calibration session, which is valuable context an agent could not infer. It does not say whether the pink noise persists if stop is never called, whether a session is stateful across calls, or what happens when the reading falls outside tolerance, leaving real gaps for a stateful, audio-emitting tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose then the action breakdown then the guiding goal. It is tight and every sentence carries workflow information, with only mild duplication of defaults already present in the schema.

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 stateful, five-parameter workflow tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job: it explains the ordered phases, what each phase produces ('read current SPL + get adjustment guidance'), and the target/tolerance concept. The remaining gap is the absence of any output detail for the check action and any warning about audible pink noise during start.

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 100%, so the enum meanings, meter_id range 1-4, weighting options A/C/Z, and target/tolerance ranges are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the default 85 dB broadcast reference and the configurable tolerance, which adds a bit of domain framing but no syntax or format detail beyond structured fields.

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 resource and activity — 'monitor level calibration workflow' — and enumerates its three actions with concrete effects (play pink noise + start SPL meter, read level + guidance, end calibration). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as rew_api_spl_meter or rew_api_check_levels, which appear to overlap in reading SPL levels.

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 action list implies a start → check → stop sequence, which gives implicit usage guidance for the workflow itself. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over rew_api_spl_meter or rew_api_check_levels, nor any prerequisite (e.g., that check requires a prior start) or exclusion spelled out.

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