track_resample

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 basic operation but does not explain whether the resampling is destructive, whether the original audio is replaced, whether undo is possible, or what the actual effect on the project state will be beyond changing the sample rate.

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 primary action, followed by a clearly labeled Args section. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, and the second documents the parameter with meaning, examples, and validation. There is no 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?

For a single-parameter operation, the description is nearly complete: the parameter is fully documented and the target of the operation is clear. The only minor gap is the lack of information about the operation's side effects or return value, but given the simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, this is not a major omission.

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 provides only the parameter name, type, and default value, with 0% schema description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining that 'rate' is the target sample rate in Hz, offering concrete examples (44100, 48000, 96000), and adding the constraint 'Must be > 0'. This is exactly what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 ('Resample') applied to a specific resource ('the selected track') and identifies the key operation ('to a new sample rate'). This is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools like effect_change_speed or effect_change_tempo, which change playback characteristics rather than the underlying sample rate.

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 intended use is implied clearly: use this tool when you need to change the selected track's sample rate. However, the description does not explicitly provide guidance on when not to use it or mention any alternative tools that might be more appropriate for related operations.

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