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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the effect chain order (Revamp EQ → Compressor → Reverb → Delay), that it returns effect indices and parameter values, and the effect of each parameter. This provides sufficient behavioral context for safe usage.

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 well-structured: summary, then parameter details, then examples. All parts are valuable, though it could be slightly more streamlined. The example section is particularly helpful.

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?

With 4 parameters fully described, an output schema present, and clear explanation of the effect chain created, the description covers essential context. It doesn't need to detail return values due to output schema. Minor gaps: no mention of prerequisites or error conditions, but sufficient for typical use.

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%, so description must compensate fully. It explains each parameter: unit_index (target audio unit), style (five presets with descriptions), reverb_amount (wet/dry, default 0.25), delay_amount (optional, default 0). Examples illustrate usage. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description states clearly: 'Add a ready-made vocal processing chain to an audio unit — EQ + compressor + reverb (+ optional delay).' It specifies the verb (add), resource (vocal chain), and distinguishes from siblings like add_effect and add_bass_chain by noting it replaces multiple calls.

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 includes: 'One call replaces 3-4 individual add_effect + set_effect_parameter calls. Designed for vocal tracks but works on any melodic content.' This gives explicit guidance on when to use it and suggests the alternative of individual calls, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements.

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