effect_tremolo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation but does not disclose whether the effect permanently modifies the audio, whether an active selection is required, whether it is undoable, or what the return/result is. For a mutating audio tool, this is a significant 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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a clear argument listing. Every sentence is informative, and the parameter details are easy to scan. The defaults repeat the schema, but that duplication is minor and improves usability.

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 tool is low complexity with all three parameters fully documented, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the effect and arguments but omits important context such as preconditions (e.g., selected audio must exist), destructive behavior, and result reporting. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: frequency as tremolo speed in Hz with range 1-1000, depth as percentage with range 0-100, and waveform with an explicit numeric-to-shape mapping. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema definitions and defaults.

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 the tool's function: 'Apply tremolo (volume oscillation) effect to the selected audio.' This is a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical 'volume oscillation' clarifies the effect's nature. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling effect tools like effect_phaser or effect_echo, so it lacks strong sibling differentiation.

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 says the effect applies to selected audio but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. No sibling tool is referenced, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and generic behavior.

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