effect_repeat

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. It reveals the count range (1-128), but it never states whether the selected audio is replaced, whether the operation is destructive, whether it is undoable, or what the resulting audio should look like.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and contains little filler. The default value is repeated from the schema, which is slightly redundant, but overall the structure is efficient.

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?

Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is only partially complete. It defines the operation and parameter but omits the behavioral contract: what happens to the original selection, whether the effect is destructive, and what result the agent should expect.

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 schema provides no parameter description and no minimum/maximum, so the description's 'Number of times to repeat (1-128)' adds meaningful constraint and semantic context. It could be slightly clearer about whether count means additional copies beyond the original, but it compensates for the schema gap reasonably well.

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 clearly states a concrete action ('Repeat') and a resource ('selected audio') with a user-specified count. It is understandable on its own, but it does not differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as edit_duplicate or other effect tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, no prerequisite like selecting audio first, and no exclusions. The name and category imply the use case, but the description does not explicitly establish it.

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