generate_chirp

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 disclosing behavior. It explains parameters and defaults but does not describe what happens when the tool is invoked—for example, whether it creates a new track, replaces selection, or adds audio to an existing track. The description is limited to the input parameters and does not cover the output or 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 concise and well-structured: a single opening sentence stating the action, followed by a bulleted list of parameters with defaults. No fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 description is incomplete for practical use. It does not mention preconditions or the effect of the tool—for instance, whether it creates a new track, requires a selection, or overwrites existing audio. It also lacks differentiation from the many sibling generation tools. Without output schema or annotations, the agent lacks key context on how the result is delivered.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: waveform lists allowed values, start_freq and end_freq are in Hz, start_amp and end_amp are amplitudes 0-1, and duration is in seconds. It adds meaning for all 6 parameters, though it could be more explicit about constraints like the exact waveform values. Overall, it makes the parameters clear.

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 'Generate a chirp (frequency sweep),' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like generate_tone and generate_noise by name, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 vs. alternatives like generate_tone or generate_noise. The description does not mention scenarios where a chirp is appropriate, nor does it give exclusions or comparisons. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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