bass_and_treble

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

This 'annotation_placeholder' has no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions dB ranges and defaults but does not say whether the operation is destructive, whether it applies to the current selection, or what the audible/state impact is beyond adjusting frequencies. This is a mutation-style effect tool with too little behavior disclosure.

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 compact and front-loads the purpose before listing parameters. It could be slightly tighter since defaults are already present in the schema, but the format is clean and readable without unnecessary prose.

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?

The description captures the essential parameter semantics and is reasonably self-contained for a simple three-parameter tool. However, it lacks any statement about the target of the adjustment (e.g., selected audio, active track, entire project) and does not mention the effect's destructive/preview nature, which is relevant for an audio-editing tool invoked by an agent.

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 0%, and the input schema only provides parameter names, types, and defaults. The description adds crucial meaning: units (dB), valid ranges (-30 to 30), and the role of each parameter (bass adjustment, treble adjustment, output gain). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states a clear action ('Adjust bass and treble frequencies') and identifies the tool as a 'simple tonal shaping tool,' which conveys its purpose and scope. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling effects like effect_notch_filter or effect_tremolo, but the bass/treble focus is distinct enough.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternative effects, nor any mention of the expected context (e.g., selected audio, track, or clip). The description only explains what the tool does and its parameters, leaving the agent to infer usage conditions.

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