Set equalizer

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden. It says 'set' but does not disclose whether this overwrites existing EQ gains, what happens when optional bands are omitted (e.g., reset to 0 or left unchanged), or any potential side effects. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No filler or redundant wording.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no helpful annotations, the description is far too sparse. It omits key details like whether parameters are optional, the range semantics already in the schema (though that's not in the description), and how the tool behaves. An agent gets little practical guidance beyond the core action.

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 compensate. It mentions 'four-band EQ gains' and 'dB', implying the four numeric parameters, but it does not map to actual parameter names (low, lowMid, highMid, high) or explain the required trackId. The description adds some context but not enough to fully understand the parameters without inspecting the schema.

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?

Clearly states it sets the four-band EQ gains in dB for a track. The verb 'set' and specific resource 'four-band EQ gains' make the purpose unmistakable and distinguish it from sibling tools like set_mixer or add_effect.

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?

Usage context is implied: use when adjusting EQ gains on a track. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, such as 'use add_effect for inserting effects' or 'use set_mixer for mixer levels.' The description does not fully guide when to choose this over similar audio tools.

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