Measurement EQ

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It includes three mutating actions (set_equaliser, set_filters, set_target) but says nothing about whether these overwrite existing configuration, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the response of get_* versus predicted_response looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage and no output schema, that is a substantial disclosure 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?

The opening sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the second sentence is a wholesale repeat of the action enum already in the schema, which consumes a large share of an otherwise very short description. Nothing is confusing, but part of the text does not earn its place.

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?

The tool is a multi-action controller with three write paths, five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description leaves an agent without any sense of what get_target or predicted_response return, what happens on failed set_* calls, or how the per-measurement EQ relates to the sibling EQ tool. It is not adequate for this level of complexity.

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% and the enum of nine actions is fully documented, so the schema does the interpretive work. The description's action list merely duplicates the enum and adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Manage per-measurement EQ settings') with clear scope (per-measurement, not global). An agent can tell it operates on EQ for a single measurement, but the description never distinguishes it from the sibling rew_api_eq, which plausibly covers similar ground. Clear, but no sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus rew_api_eq, rew_compare_to_target, or rew_compare_measurements. The action list is a restatement of the schema enum rather than a set of conditions, so it does not help an agent pick this tool or a particular action over an alternative. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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