audio_effect_manage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior of each operation (add, configure, remove, list) and the canonical call shape, but it does not mention side effects, reversibility, failure behavior, or the impact of operations like remove on the audio bus.

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 well-structured with a clear title, bulleted operation signatures, and the canonical call shape. It is appropriately sized for a multi-operation tool, front-loaded with the resource, and contains 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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. However, with no annotations and a generic params schema, the description still leaves gaps around properties, effect_class enumeration, at_position semantics, and session_id usage. It is decent but not fully self-sufficient.

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 is generic and has 0% coverage, so the description is the only parameter documentation. It provides parameter names and defaults for each op, which is helpful, but leaves key details unexplained: the structure of properties, valid effect_class values, and the meaning of at_position=-1.

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 identifies the specific resource (AudioServer DSP bus effects) and enumerates four distinct operations with one-line definitions. It clearly distinguishes this tool from broader siblings like audio_manage by focusing on bus-effect management.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audio_manage. The ops list implies use cases, but the description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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