master_audio

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the processing chain, output format, spatial options, and 2-pass loudnorm. It does not mention potential side effects or destructive nature, but these are inherent to mastering.

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 description is detailed but front-loaded with the core mastering chain. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, process, output, and parameter details comprehensively. It explains the spatial options in depth and specifies output format.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions, but the tool description adds significant context, especially for the spatial parameter (explains each enum value) and the mastering chain. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool runs a full professional mastering chain with specific processing steps (corrective EQ, compression, etc.) and outputs a 320kbps MP3. It distinguishes itself from siblings through its focus on the mastering process.

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?

The description implies usage for mastering audio to hit loudness/true-peak targets, with clear output format. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling tools context suggests it's for final mastering.

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