eq_tilt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the brightness parameter but does not disclose whether this adds a plugin, modifies existing EQ settings, is reversible, or what side effects occur. For a mutating tool, this is thin.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the brightness value mapping is front-loaded and compact. Every word earns its place despite the minimal length.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main knob semantics but omits the explicit action/resource relationship and any guidance on valid brightness bounds or when to use it. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for brightness (-1=dark, 0=neutral, +1=bright), which is useful beyond the bare number type, but track_id is left undocumented and the valid range or bounds for brightness are not explicit.

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?

Describes a 'Single-knob bright/dark EQ' and defines the brightness scale, which clearly distinguishes it from eq_high_pass and eq_low_pass. However, it lacks an explicit action verb and does not explicitly state that it applies to the track, relying on the track_id parameter to imply the target.

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 guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over eq_high_pass, eq_low_pass, or other processing tools, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The only usage info is the brightness value mapping, which is parameter semantics rather than tool-selection guidance.

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