apply_audio_effect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that an audio effect is applied, but does not disclose whether this adds to or replaces existing effects, whether parameters are optional, whether the effect name must come from list_available_audio_effects, or whether the operation is undoable.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It concisely states the core action and target, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, a nested parameters object, and a large sibling list, this description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain how to discover valid effect names, what the parameters object should contain, what happens on success, or how this differs from similar effect-applying tools.

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 already provides descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's clipId, effectName, and parameters definitions, and it does not clarify the structure or accepted keys for the nested parameters object.

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 verb ('Applies'), the resource ('audio effect'), and the target ('a clip'). It differentiates from related siblings like list_available_audio_effects and apply_audio_effect_to_all_clips by indicating a single clip, though it does not explicitly contrast with the generic apply_effect.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apply_effect, batch_apply_effect, or apply_audio_effect_to_all_clips. The description implies the basic use case but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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