Eq Match

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the render step, the 1/3-octave comparison, the octave-centre EQ band range (63 Hz..16 kHz), the +-max_db gain clip, that it replaces an earlier eq_match EQ, and that it writes a level difference to the fader. It stops short of explaining what apply=false does or any permission/undo implications, leaving some behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 core sentence is long and clause-dense but front-loads the purpose and every clause adds operational detail rather than filler. The trailing usage sentence is efficient. It could be split for readability but wastes little.

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 described. For a mutation tool with zero annotations the description supplies rich effect/destruction context, but the missing explanation of apply semantics leaves a meaningful gap given the 0% parameter coverage.

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 coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains bars ([a,b]), max_db (gain clipping bound), and level (fader write), but leaves apply and the project/track identifiers unaddressed, and apply in particular has non-obvious dry-run semantics.

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 precise verb+resource+mechanism: it matches a track's long-term spectrum to a reference stem and writes a peaking EQ as fx 0. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like levels_from_ref or compare, which do not describe this specific render-and-EQ-write pipeline.

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?

It gives a concrete applicability condition ('Best where that track dominates its stem in the window (e.g. a pad in an intro)'), which tells the agent when this is the right choice. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to prefer levels_from_ref or fx_set instead), so the routing is contextual rather than explicit.

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