ass_karaoke_shift

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses clamping ('floor 0', durations never go below zero), that shift_times propagates to the line's Start/End, that negative values trim, and that overflow is reported as sums rather than stretched. It omits permission/undo context, but the key mutation-side effects are spelled out.

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 core behavior is front-loaded correctly, but the bulk of the text is a long inline dump of the return object's nested shape. It is informative given there is no output schema, yet it is heavy prose that crowds out operation-level guidance.

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 timing-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the inline return shape and clamping semantics fill important gaps. However, the undocumented required 'selection' argument and the unexplained doc_id default leave a real invocation gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for shift_ms ('negative trims, floor 0') and shift_times, but leaves the required 'selection' parameter and 'doc_id' completely unexplained, so an agent gets no help on how to scope the operation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Shift every karaoke duration by shift_ms', scoping it to karaoke durations rather than general line timing. This implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like ass_karaoke_scale or ass_shift_times, but it never names or contrasts those alternatives explicitly.

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 explains what the parameters do but gives no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. An agent must infer for itself when to pick this over ass_karaoke_scale, ass_karaoke_retime, or ass_shift_times — none of which are mentioned.

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