effect_bass_and_treble

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fails to disclose whether the effect is destructive, applies to the current selection vs. entire track, or what happens to the audio pipeline. Only parameter ranges are documented.

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?

Well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by an Args block. No redundant filler. The formatting is efficient, though the Args section repeats information that ideally belongs in the schema (necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions).

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?

Adequate for a simple three-parameter effect tool with no output schema, as it fully documents the inputs. However, it lacks operational context (e.g., selection requirements, track targeting) that would be necessary for correct invocation in a complex audio editing workflow.

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?

Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage. Documents all three parameters (bass, treble, gain) with units (dB), valid ranges (-30 to 30), and default values (0), adding essential semantic information completely absent from 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?

States specific action ('Adjust bass and treble frequencies') and characterizes the tool as a 'simple tonal shaping tool,' which hints at its scope. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like effect_equalization or high/low pass filters.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like effect_equalization, effect_high_pass_filter, or effect_low_pass_filter. No prerequisites (e.g., audio selection requirements) are mentioned despite sibling tools for selection and cursor management existing.

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