Levels From Ref

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose significant behavior: apply=True writes fader changes, the proposed change is uniform per stem, and downstream processors alter levels after application. It does not detail permissions, reversibility, or error conditions, which leaves some gaps.

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 purpose and apply behavior are front-loaded, but the second clause about comparing sums is dense, and the prerequisite and re-render advice make the paragraph long and somewhat run-on. It is informative but could be tighter.

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 no explanation. However, for a tool with a destructive side effect (apply=True), unknown bars semantics, and no annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete on parameter behavior and error/permission conditions.

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 should explain the three parameters. It documents apply=True well and implies a project/reference context, but it does not explain the bars parameter at all, leaving one of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource: it compares per-stem levels against a reference and proposes fader changes, with apply=True writing them. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like separate or stem_map_set, though the 'sum of the mapped stems' phrasing is slightly dense.

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 clearly states prerequisites: needs stem_map_set, separate(source='ref') and render(stems=True) over the same bars. It also advises re-rendering and re-checking after applying because compressors and the limiter move levels. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or explicitly say when not to use it.

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