Recommends fades at audio joins to hide edit artifacts in podcast multitrack projects, helping producers clean up edits.
Recommend fades at joins to hide edit artifacts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| speaker | No | ||
| track_id | No | ||
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "project_path"
-]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full behavioral burden. It implies a non-destructive recommendation but does not state whether it modifies state, requires permissions, or what it returns. Missing key behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded and free of waste. However, given the tool's complexity and lack of other information, it may be overly terse, but from a pure conciseness standpoint it is efficient.
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?
With three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It provides the core purpose but omits parameter guidance, usage context, and behavioral details needed for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 0% for all three parameters (speaker, track_id, project_path). The description does not mention any parameters or their meaning, leaving the agent unable to infer how to use them.
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 'recommend' and resource 'fades at joins' with a purpose 'to hide edit artifacts'. It distinguishes from sibling apply_fade_recommendations_tool by being a recommendation rather than application, but does not explicitly name siblings or differentiate further.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_fade_recommendations_tool or fade_joins_tool. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.