raw_scrub

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful risks: it may open a dialog or change project state, and it warns the agent to verify before invoking. However, the disclosure is hedged ('may') with no specifics about which dialog, what state changes, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the side-effect caution; every sentence earns its place. Minor deduction for the redundant 'Scrub:' prefix that repeats the tool name.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, argument count, and potential side effects. It falls short by not explaining what scrubbing concretely does and by giving an instruction ('inspect the command name first') without telling the agent how to execute it.

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 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by confirming this is a static no-argument action, assuring the agent that the empty schema is intentional rather than incomplete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Scrub through audio') plus the trait 'static no-argument Audacity action', so it goes beyond a tautology. However, 'scrub' is left undefined and the description does not differentiate it from closely related siblings like raw_seek; the 'Scrub:' prefix also redundantly restates the tool name.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no comparison with alternatives. The only advice, 'inspect the command name first', is a cautionary note rather than a routing rule, and the description never says when to choose raw_scrub over raw_seek, cursor novigation, or transport tools.

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