apply_master_match

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

The description mentions 'bake the matched curve onto a master-bus ReaEQ + limiter', hinting at destructive changes, which aligns with the 'destructiveHint' annotation. However, it lacks details on what exactly is destroyed (e.g., existing FX settings, original audio) and the overall effect on the project.

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 short but overloaded with jargon, making it hard to parse. It could be more concise while being clearer. The structure is front-loaded but ineffective.

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?

Given the tool has a single required parameter and a destructive annotation, the description should explain the transformation, what inputs are needed, and what the output or state change is. It fails to provide sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's operation.

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?

The only parameter 'fingerprint' is described as a string in the schema, but the description only mentions 'fingerprint's reference WAV' without specifying the expected format or content (e.g., file path, UUID). No additional meaning is added beyond 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 uses cryptic jargon like 'spectral half', 'Matchering', and 'ReaEQ' without explaining what the tool accomplishes. It fails to clearly state that it applies EQ and limiting based on a fingerprint reference. The purpose is vague and confusing.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as 'apply_changes' or 'render_and_audit'. The description does not specify prerequisites or context for invoking the tool.

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