effect_fade_out

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states the core effect and the selection prerequisite. It does not disclose the default fade curve/duration, whether the operation modifies audio in place, or whether it is reversible via undo—relevant gaps for a tool with zero configurable parameters.

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?

Two short sentences with zero redundancy: the first front-loads the action and the second adds the essential prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, making this appropriately minimal rather than under-specified.

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 parameterless effect tool this is nearly adequate, but it omits the tool's fixed/default behavior, any note on reversibility, and a pointer distinguishing it from the closely related sibling fade tools. An agent choosing among effect_fade_out, effect_studio_fade_out, and effect_adjustable_fade would benefit from more context to pick correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to document; the only operational input is the region selection mentioned in the description. Per the 0-parameter baseline, this is acceptable, though a note that the fade uses fixed defaults would add marginal value.

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 a fade-out to the selected audio') with a clear verb and resource, and 'fade-out' inherently contrasts with the sibling tool effect_fade_in. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related fade variants in the sibling list (effect_studio_fade_out, effect_adjustable_fade), so differentiation relies on name inference rather than explicit statement.

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 second sentence ('Select the region to fade first.') provides a concrete prerequisite for correct invocation. However, there is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over sibling alternatives like effect_studio_fade_out or effect_adjustable_fade, leaving alternative selection to the agent's inference.

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