effect_reverse

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 clearly states the action and the required selection context, but it does not mention whether the original audio is overwritten, whether the effect is undoable, or any other side effects. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 the core action first and the prerequisite second. Every word earns its place; there is no unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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, no-output-schema effect tool, the description includes the key operational requirement: select a region first. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could slightly improve by noting that the operation modifies the selected audio in place.

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 and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters for the description to explain, and it does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 verb and resource: 'Reverse the selected audio.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and scopes it to the current selection. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling effect tools, but 'reverse' is semantically distinct enough among the listed effects.

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?

'Select a region first' provides an explicit precondition and clear usage context: the tool operates on an existing selection. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative effect tools, so it lacks the explicit exclusion guidance required for a 5.

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