master_to_target

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it states the step order, that existing master plugins are reused, that profiled plugins are measurement-calibrated, the 0.5 LU tolerance, the true-peak ceiling check, and that each step renders the range (time cost). It does not say what happens to pre-existing master FX that aren't reused, or whether the run is undoable, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the overall action before the step detail and the performance note. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler or repetition of the name.

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 an 11-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the workflow, calibration behaviour and performance characteristics well. Gaps remain around the undocumented 'passes' parameter, failure behaviour, and the state of master FX not reused, but the core is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 82%, so the schema already documents most parameters (eq, glue, style, target_lufs, start/end_bar, glue_db, platform, glue_compressor); the description largely echoes these. It never explains 'passes' (the iteration count, undocumented in both places), and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is right.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource — mastering the mix via a defined master-bus chain (EQ → glue compressor → limiter) to a loudness target. This is clearly separable from sibling mix/export tools such as auto_mix, export_mix and compare_mix_to_style without opening any 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?

Usage is implied (run this to master an existing mix to a target loudness/platform) and the tool is not positioned against any sibling. There is a useful efficiency hint — 'a short loud section is much faster than the whole song' — but no explicit when-not or alternative-naming guidance.

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