Instrument Fit

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 the matching dimensions (spectrum + envelope + width), the fmin/fmax spectral-window rationale, and the side effects ('Saves the result as sound save_as and/or sets it on apply_to_track'). But it omits determinism/cost behavior around seed and iters (80 default), and does not state auth/permission or runtime expectations for an iterative search.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining lines are dense, information-bearing parameter hints. Some parenthetical asides are terse, but little is wasted given 14 undocumented parameters.

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 needn't be explained, and the primary mutation targets (save_as, apply_to_track) are covered. However, for a 14-parameter, 4-required, iterative fitting tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, six parameters (including seed/iters controlling reproducibility) remain unexplained, leaving clear completeness gaps.

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% and there are 14 parameters, so the description must compensate. It documents target, instrument, params (with concrete syntax examples like {"tone_hz": [100, 250]}), notes, fmin, fmax, save_as, and apply_to_track — a substantial majority. It leaves project, fx, seed, iters, length_sec, and target_window undocumented, so not fully compensating.

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+resource: 'Search instrument parameters so its sound matches a target (spectrum + envelope + width).' An agent can understand this is a parameter-fitting search tool. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like track_fit, eq_match, or ref_retune, which appear to do analogous matching work.

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?

Usage is implied by the workflow hints: the target 'source like sound:refsnare (cut one first with sound_import)' gives a prerequisite, and the description says how to seed params and instrument. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus the sibling match/fit tools, and no exclusions or mode-selection guidance beyond the inline hints.

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