Eq Kill

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool mutates state by killing or restoring an EQ band and mentions the device requirement, but it does not explain consequences such as whether killing nullifies the band, whether restore is a true inverse, or what happens if the required device is absent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite and band values are stated efficiently in the second sentence.

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 simple three-parameter tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete. It covers the operation, prerequisite, and allowed band values. The only notable gap is the undefined 'deck' parameter format, which is a minor omission given the other contextual clues.

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 explicitly defines band as 'low | mid | high' and implies the restore behavior, but the 'deck' parameter remains purely a string with no format or identification guidance, and the mapping of the 'restore' boolean to kill/restore is only implicit.

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 states a specific verb ('Kill (or restore)') and a specific resource ('an EQ band on a deck'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It also differentiates it from sibling tools like kill_all_fx by narrowing the scope to a single EQ band on a single deck.

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 provides clear context by stating the prerequisite condition: an 'EQ Three' device must be on the deck track. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the prerequisite is enough to guide when this tool is applicable.

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