postfader_review_evaluate

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

The explicit 'apply zero FL mutations' goes beyond the annotations by clarifying that FL Studio state will not be touched, reinforcing the readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false annotations. The 'by known section' phrase also discloses that the tool operates on caller-supplied section boundaries, which is useful behavioral context.

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 a single compact sentence that states the operation, scope, and side-effect guarantee with zero filler. It front-loads the action ('Measure') and ends with the non-mutation note, making it easy to scan and parse for an agent.

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 that an output schema exists and parameter semantics are fully documented, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: measure globally and by section without touching FL. It does not need to spell out return values or request construction, as the output schema and the required review_session_id field cover those. The only minor gap is not explicitly naming the review_session_id, but that is present in the schema.

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 100%, and the nested schemas already document the request fields, section ranges, and reference windows in detail. The description only adds that sections are 'known' (user-supplied), which maps to section_ranges but does not explain individual parameters. The schema does the heavy lifting, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Measure') and a specific resource ('one bounce') with scope ('globally and by known section'), which distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like postfader_review_compare, postfader_review_get, and postfader_review_start. It is not a tautology and gives the agent a precise mental model of the operation.

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 when to use this tool: when a read-only measurement of a bounce is needed, over the whole file or per supplied section. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, but the 'apply zero FL mutations' line plus the sibling names (compare, get, start) make the intended use boundary reasonably clear.

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