effect_studio_fade_out

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 shaped-curve behavior, but it does not say whether the operation modifies the audio destructively, affects only the current selection, or is undoable. For a mutating effect this is a meaningful gap.

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: the first sentence states exactly what the tool does, and the second adds one useful qualitative distinction. No words are wasted.

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 is nearly complete: it names the action, the target, and the distinguishing audio-curve behavior. It could add a brief note about selecting audio first or how this differs from the basic fade, but nothing essential is missing for invocation.

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 and the schema fully documents this by listing an empty properties object, so no parameter details are needed from the description. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema covers everything.

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 identifies a specific action—applying a fade out—and the target resource (selected audio). It hints at differentiation with 'specially shaped curve' and 'more natural than a linear fade,' but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling effect_fade_out.

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?

The description implies when to use it: when a natural-sounding, studio-quality fade out is desired on the selection. However, it does not state when not to use it or how it compares to effect_fade_out or effect_adjustable_fade, leaving the choice between siblings to inference.

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