effect_distortion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says it applies a distortion effect. It does not explain whether the operation modifies audio destructively, requires a selection, affects the whole project, or can be undone.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a compact parameter list. It repeats defaults already present in the schema, but overall it contains no unnecessary fluff.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It omits accepted distortion_type values, does not clarify selection prerequisites, and provides no behavioral or return information.

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 parameter documentation in the description matters. It usefully adds the dB range for threshold_db and restates defaults, but distortion_type is only described as 'Type of distortion' with no accepted values beyond the default, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 opens with a clear action and resource: 'Apply distortion effect to the selected audio.' This identifies the tool's function precisely and distinguishes it from effect_amplify, effect_reverb, and other effect siblings by name. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling effects.

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 phrase 'to the selected audio' implies that the tool should be used when a distortion effect is desired on an active audio selection. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, what alternatives exist, or what prerequisites apply.

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