effect_reverb

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 only says 'apply' without stating whether the effect is destructive, whether it replaces the current selection or creates a new track, if it can be undone, or what the output format is. It also does not clarify the relationship between wet/dry gain or 'wet_only'. This is inadequate for a complex mutating effect.

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 concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a neatly formatted parameter list. It is front-loaded with the key information and does not waste words. The parameter list is clear and readable, making it easy to scan. It could be improved by grouping or highlighting the most important parameters, but overall it 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 the complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the behavior of the effect, the prerequisites (selected audio), what happens to the existing audio, or any side effects. An agent would need to know whether reverb is applied as a replacement or as a new track, and whether it is reversible. The description leaves critical context unresolved, making it only minimally sufficient for simple invocations with defaults.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 10 parameters with ranges (0-100) and units (ms, dB) plus defaults, which is helpful. However, it does not explain what each parameter does conceptually (e.g., what 'room_size' affects, how 'pre_delay' impacts the sound). The names give some intuition, but for parameters like 'hf_damping' or 'tone_low', an agent would need more insight to set sensible values. The description offers basic semantics but not deep guidance.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'Apply reverb effect to the selected audio.' This is a clear verb+resource combination. The tool name 'effect_reverb' is distinct from the many sibling effect tools (echo, distortion, wahwah, etc.), so the purpose is unambiguous and differentiates from alternatives.

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 versus other effects (e.g., echo, phaser) or any prerequisites. The description does not mention that the user must have an audio selection, nor does it explain that reverb is typically applied to add space or depth. It also does not mention any constraints or conditions. This is a clear gap for a 10-parameter effect.

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