Levels From Ref

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the tool proposes changes, that apply=True writes them, that prerequisites must be in place, and that compressors/limiter will shift levels again requiring re-render. It stops short of describing the proposed-change output format or error behavior, but the output schema exists to cover return values.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by prerequisites and usage triggers. Every sentence adds operational value, though the dense run-on style with parentheticals could be slightly tightened. No filler.

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 3-parameter tool with an output schema and a non-trivial multi-step workflow, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, side effects, and the re-check cycle. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains apply semantics ('apply=True writes them', implying default is a dry run) and clarifies bars usage via the example 'bars=[a, b] for that stretch.' The project parameter is left implicit, but its meaning is likely obvious from domain context and sibling tools.

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?

States a specific action (set faders from the reference's stem balance), names the resource (stems/track faders), and explicitly distinguishes itself from related tools like stem_map_set, separate, and render. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to reach for it ('when a part sounds too loud or too quiet, or render(stems=True)'s balance lines name a stem and a stretch'), lists prerequisites (stem_map_set, separate(source='ref'), render(stems=True) over the same bars), and prescribes follow-up ('Re-render and re-check after applying'). Clear when and how, with no ambiguity.

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