effect_equalization

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It correctly notes the operation applies to 'selected audio' and documents parameter constraints (odd number range for length). However, it fails to state whether this is a destructive modification, if it requires specific track permissions, or what happens if no audio is selected.

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 uses a docstring-style format with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by an Args section. This structure efficiently packs parameter documentation into the description field. While the Args section consumes multiple lines, every line provides necessary constraint information not present in the schema.

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 a two-parameter audio effect with no output schema, the description adequately covers the basics of what the tool does and its parameter requirements. However, it lacks completeness regarding available EQ presets (is 'Default' the only option?), the specific audio processing algorithm used, and whether the effect is applied destructively or non-destructively to the project.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It successfully adds semantic meaning for both parameters: curve_name is identified as an 'EQ preset curve' with a default value, and length is described as 'Filter length' with critical validation constraints (odd number, 21-8191). It could further improve by listing available preset names or explaining the quality/performance tradeoff of the length parameter.

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 applies an 'EQ curve' (equalization) to selected audio, identifying the verb (Apply) and target resource. However, it uses domain jargon ('EQ' instead of 'equalization') and does not explicitly differentiate this curve-based approach from sibling parametric EQ tools like effect_bass_and_treble or effect_high_pass_filter.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative filtering or EQ effects in the sibling list (e.g., effect_bass_and_treble, effect_notch_filter). There is no mention of prerequisites such as requiring an audio selection first, though 'selected audio' is mentioned implying this requirement.

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