effect_repair

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behavior: it is size-limited, requires a prior selection, and surfaces a popup error when the selection is too long. It could add whether the operation is destructive or undoable, but the core runtime behavior is clearly conveyed.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the prerequisite, and the failure signal. No filler or repetition of schema 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 zero-parameter effect with no output schema, the description covers the essential success condition and error behavior. It does not state whether the effect can be undone, but the simple interface and explicit popup warning make it sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is complete by default and the 0-param baseline of 4 applies. The description adds selection-state context rather than parameter docs, which is appropriate for a tool with no formal inputs.

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 names a specific action ('repair') on a specific resource (damaged audio) and adds a precise scope constraint (max 128 samples). It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similarly named repair/cleanup siblings such as effect_clip_fix.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite ('select the damaged region first') and an explicit limit ('must be extremely short'), including the failure mode if violated. It does not name alternative tools for longer damage or other repair tasks, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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