effect_sliding_stretch

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states what the effect does but does not mention whether the operation destructively modifies the selection, whether undo is available, or any side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear, structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant filler.

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 parameters are well-explained and no output schema is expected, so invocation details are mostly covered. However, without annotations, the description omits behavioral context such as destructiveness and selection requirements, leaving it slightly incomplete for an agent needing full confidence.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by documenting all four parameters with units, ranges, and defaults. For example, 'rate_change_start: Tempo change at start in % (-99 to 3000)' adds meaning not present in the input 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Change') with a clear resource ('tempo and/or pitch') and scope ('across the selection'). The phrase 'sliding time stretch' plus 'gradually' distinguishes it from static pitch/tempo effect siblings like effect_change_pitch and effect_change_tempo.

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?

Usage is only implied through 'gradually across the selection,' which hints that this is for sliding rather than constant changes. No explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is provided, even though adjacent tools like effect_change_tempo and effect_change_pitch exist.

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