effect_echo

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states that the effect is applied to selected audio, but it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive/undoable, whether a selection is required, or what happens if no audio is selected. These are important side effects for a mutation-style audio tool.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter documentation is compact and directly useful, with no filler or redundant content.

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 simple two-parameter effect tool, the core invocation details are present: what it does and what the parameters mean. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should also mention whether the modification is in-place/destructive and whether an audio selection is required. These are clear gaps.

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 description fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. It explains that 'delay' is in seconds and gives a default, and it defines 'decay' as a 0-1 factor with the interpretation 'lower = faster decay'. This adds meaningful semantics 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 a specific action ('Apply echo effect') and target ('selected audio'), clearly identifying the tool's function. It is distinct from obvious siblings like effect_reverb by naming 'echo', but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related effects such as echo/reverb/repeat.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like effect_reverb or effect_repeat. It implies use when an echo effect is needed, but it does not state any exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts.

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