raw_snap_to_off

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does state that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is useful, but it does not specify what dialog, what project state may change, or whether the operation is destructive or reversible. This is partial transparency rather than comprehensive.

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 with the core function: 'Disable snapping for selections.' The subsequent warnings about dialogs and project state are useful and not redundant. The final imperative 'inspect the command name first' is slightly cryptic but does not inflate the description excessively.

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 no-argument tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and one safety caveat. However, it leaves gaps: the exact effect on selection snapping, whether a dialog may require user interaction, and what 'inspect the command name first' means operationally. These gaps matter because the agent cannot infer them from structured data.

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 is empty and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description confirms the tool takes no arguments ('Static no-argument'), which reinforces the schema without adding contradictory information. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets it.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Disable snapping for selections.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like raw_snap_to_nearest and raw_snap_to_prior, which adjust snapping instead of turning it off. The added 'Static no-argument Audacity action' is ancillary but does not obscure the purpose.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as raw_snap_to_nearest or raw_snap_to_prior. The only additional instruction, 'inspect the command name first,' is vague and does not clarify usage conditions or provide a decision rule.

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