mix_apply_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions it sets volume_db and optional pan, and returns the dB value, but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing settings, whether it's reversible, what happens on invalid genre/role, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant 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 description is concise and front-loaded with the core action. The genre and role lists are necessary for valid input and are presented cleanly. It avoids redundancy and stays within a reasonable 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?

The description returns the applied dB value and lists valid genres/roles, which is helpful. However, for a mutation tool with no output schema, it does not cover edge cases like track not existing, whether calling twice has cumulative effects, or interaction with other mix tools. The 'use once per track' hint is useful but incomplete.

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 only 20% (only offset_db has a schema description). The description compensates somewhat by listing valid values for genre and role and clarifying that pan is optional. However, it does not explain track_id semantics or the pan range beyond what the schema shows, and offset_db is only explained in 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Set a track's volume_db (and optional pan) to the genre+role reference from the MIX_BALANCE table.' It also lists allowed genres and roles, giving precise scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mix_set or mix_match_reference, relying only on the phrase 'instead of hand-tuning levels' which implies but does not name alternatives.

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 description gives a clear usage context: 'Use this once per track after creating it instead of hand-tuning levels.' This indicates when to use it (after track creation) and what it replaces (manual level setting). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it beyond that, so it falls short of a 5.

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