set_equalizer_band

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass are changed') and the default channel scope, which are non-obvious behaviors. However, it says nothing about prerequisites (does an EQ plugin instance need to exist?), error behavior for out-of-range bands, or whether changes are persisted.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the behavioral caveats follow. Efficient, though the channel sentence duplicates the schema default rather than adding new information.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits band-index range meaning, the role of instance and pipeline, mode/type selection context, and any sense of what the call returns or how failures are signaled.

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 40% across 10 parameters, so the description needs to compensate but largely does not. The one added fact — 'Applies to both channels by default' — merely restates the channel parameter's schema default, and band index semantics, q, instance, and pipeline (input vs output) remain unexplained.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Change one equalizer band' tells the agent this mutates a single band's settings. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling apply_parametric_eq (whole parametric EQ) and get_equalizer (read), though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this versus apply_parametric_eq (bulk EQ application) or get_equalizer. The phrase 'Change one equalizer band' only weakly implies the single-band edit scenario, leaving the agent to infer the routing decision.

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