effect_change_speed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that speed changes tempo and pitch together and provides the percent range and example, but it does not state whether the operation is destructive, requires a selection, or is undoable, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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-loaded: the core behavior is stated in the first sentence, and the parameter explanation is minimal but complete. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter effect tool this is nearly complete, but it lacks usage differentiation from closely related siblings and any safety/undo guidance despite having no annotations. The core information needed to invoke the tool is present, though.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the 'Args: percent' section is essential. It provides the valid range (-99 to 4900) and a concrete example (100 = double speed), fully clarifying the parameter's meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

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 opening clause names a specific action and resource — change speed of selected audio — and explicitly clarifies that both tempo and pitch change together, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like effect_change_pitch and effect_change_tempo.

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 prefer this tool over effect_change_tempo or effect_change_pitch, nor when not to use it. The phrase 'selected audio' implies a precondition, but there is no explicit when/when-not or alternative-selection guidance.

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