tune_param

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the monotonicity assumption and NON_MONOTONE restore-on-violation behavior, the cost profile (baseline plus up to 5 blocking renders), undo-point granularity, and the exact post-failure state (best-observed stays applied, final carries the read-back live value). This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before invoking a destructive, slow tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, and nearly every sentence carries a distinct operational fact. It is dense and slightly run-on, but there is little filler to cut.

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 8-parameter nested-object tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description still covers the outcome semantics, failure states, reset behavior, and the reported result contents, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling it.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond it: delta is relative to the baseline measurement, band_hz requires a prior Post Mortem, tolerance is the convergence window, and the selector combination rule (ONE of fx_name_contains/fx_index AND one of param_index/param_name_contains) is stated. That pairing logic is not obvious from the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: iteratively set ONE FX parameter and re-measure until a target audio outcome is hit, then report the measured result. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling set_fx_param, which sets a value directly rather than searching toward an outcome.

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?

Gives strong operational context: it is outcome-driven, ASSUMES monotonic movement, stops on non-monotone, and is expensive enough to warn the user first. Preconditions (allow_audio_writes, one FX selector and one parameter selector) are explicit. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative for the simple non-search case, so 4 rather than 5.

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