analyze_find_clipping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the side effect of creating labels. However, it omits important behavior: whether existing labels at those regions are overwritten or duplicated, what label track is affected, and whether the operation is reversible. These are meaningful gaps for a tool that mutates project state.

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 one-sentence purpose is front-loaded and waste-free, and the Args section is structured and terse. Slight redundancy exists because the parameter defaults repeat the schema for both parameters, but the added range/meaning justifies the duplication.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameters well. Missing is what the created labels look like (names, format), how the tool interacts with pre-existing labels, and what the return value is. These gaps matter for an analysis tool that modifies the label track, but the core calling contract is adequately documented.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's bare integer/default properties — and it does. It adds semantic meaning for both parameters: 'Min number of consecutive clipped samples to detect (1-1000, default 3)' and 'Min number of consecutive non-clipped samples to end a region', including the valid range and behavior. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal titles/defaults.

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+resource ('Find clipping in the selected audio') plus a concrete side effect ('create labels at clipped regions'). This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like raw_show_clipping (visual only) and the other analyze_* tools, without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't reference any sibling (e.g., raw_show_clipping, analyze_plot_spectrum) or state conditions under which clipping detection is appropriate, nor any prerequisites like playing or selecting specific audio.

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