effect_phaser

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. It documents parameter defaults and ranges but does not state that applying the effect modifies the selected audio in place, whether the operation is destructive/undoable, or any processing side effects. 'Apply ... to the selected audio' only weakly implies the behavioral impact.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by a clean, aligned argument list. Each line carries unique semantic information (range, unit, constraint, default) with no filler. The list is lengthy but justified by the six-parameter signature.

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?

The main invocation complexity — six optional parameters — is fully documented, which is substantial. However, with no annotations or output schema to fill gaps, the description omits behavioral context (in-place modification, undo behavior) and usage context (when to pick this effect over alternatives). Adequate for parameter entry but incomplete for confident tool selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by giving every parameter meaningful semantics: ranges (2-24 even-only, 0.01-40, -100 to 100), endpoint meanings (0=dry, 255=wet), units (Hz, degrees, percent), and defaults for all six parameters. This far exceeds the bare titles and defaults in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Apply phaser effect to the selected audio' — making the tool's function immediately clear. The target scope ('selected audio') is useful, and the effect type distinguishes it from sibling effect_* tools. However, it relies on the tool name for the exact effect identity and does not elaborate beyond a single clause.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as effect_wahwah, effect_tremolo, or effect_distortion. No prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., that audio must be selected first). The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and generic effect categories.

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