remove_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 states the removal action but does not disclose possible failure modes, effects on audio routing, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the effect name/position is invalid. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 efficient: one purpose sentence followed by a structured Args block. The main operation is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundant detail.

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 three-parameter removal tool, the description covers the essential operation and all argument semantics. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The main missing context is error behavior and index-base clarification, but these are not critical for correct invocation in most cases.

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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: target_type values, target_index meaning, and effect as either name or position with examples. Minor ambiguity remains (e.g., zero-based vs one-based positions, exact string matching rules), but overall the added meaning is substantial.

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 verb ('Remove'), resource ('effect from a chain'), and method ('by name or chain position'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_effect, toggle_effect, and get_effect_chain without reference to the function name alone.

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?

Usage context is implied by the description: use it when you want to remove an effect from a track or mixer chain. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, nor does it reference alternatives such as toggle_effect (for enabling/disabling) or add_effect (for insertion), leaving the selection to inference.

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