Apply an EQ mixing intent

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

Describes that it applies a move (modifying state), is undo-able, and returns band and readback strings. Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, which aligns. Adds context beyond annotations about revertibility.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then behavioral details. No wasted words; every sentence adds essential 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 presence of an output schema and clear parameter descriptions, the tool's behavior is fully explained, including undo capability and return value hints. Complete for its complexity.

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 100% with clear descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that the intent sets type/freq/gain/width as a group and that intensity scales gain, going beyond schema alone.

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?

Clearly states the tool applies a musical EQ move on a specific plugin (Fruity Parametric EQ 2) using a free band, distinguishing it from other intent tools. The description is specific about the verb 'apply' and resource, and mentions it sets parameters as an undo-able group.

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 suggests reverting with fl_rollback_last_change, providing usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like fl_plugin_set_param, but the intent-based context among siblings is clear.

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