raw_snap_to_nearest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It warns that the action may open a dialog or change project state, which is valuable safety-relevant context, but it remains vague about what exactly could change or how destructive the action might be.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a necessary caveat. Every sentence adds information 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 description is adequate for a no-argument command: it names the action, notes the no-argument nature, and warns about potential side effects. However, it does not clarify what 'nearest time unit' means, does not compare with snap-to-off or snap-to-prior siblings, and leaves the 'inspect the command name first' instruction under-explained.

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 input schema has zero parameters and the description explicitly states it is a no-argument action. This matches the schema and is entirely adequate given that no parameter documentation is needed.

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 the action: snap selections to the nearest time unit. It is specific enough to understand the tool's core purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from closely related siblings such as raw_snap_to_off and raw_snap_to_prior.

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 gives useful operational context: it is a static, no-argument Audacity action, and warns that it may open a dialog or change project state. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling snap tools, leaving some usage selection to inference.

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