apply_parametric_eq

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a destructive wholesale replacement, that it applies to both channels, and that an EQ plugin is required. It says nothing about behavior on failure (no plugin present), reversibility, or how mode/instance/pipeline affect the operation.

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 tight sentences with the action and scope front-loaded and the prerequisite trailing correctly. No filler, though the stray formatting break adds no value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and low schema coverage, leaving mode, instance, and pipeline undocumented leaves the agent under-informed about how to target the right EQ instance.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. It only alludes to bands and hints at preamp via the AutoEQ reference; mode, instance, and pipeline are entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Replace the whole equalizer with a list of bands.' The phrase 'whole equalizer' implicitly contrasts with the per-band sibling set_equalizer_band, though the sibling is never named. An agent can tell it is a wholesale replacement rather than a single-band edit.

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?

Gives clear context for use (band lists sourced from an AutoEQ ParametricEQ.txt) and states the prerequisite that an equalizer plugin must be in the chain. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the top score.

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