remove_effect_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a destructive mutation but says nothing about reversibility, required permissions, behavior when the effect is not found, or what happens if conflicting track/speaker params are supplied. A mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and this many ambiguities needs more disclosure.

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?

A single, tightly-scoped sentence with the core action front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

Though an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description is inadequate for a 4-parameter tool where every parameter is optional. It gives no indication of valid parameter combinations, whether speaker and track_id are alternatives, or how the target effect is addressed.

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% across 4 parameters. The description hints at 'effect' and 'track or speaker', loosely mapping to three params, but leaves project_path entirely unexplained and gives no guidance on how effect is identified or how track_id and speaker interact — critical since all four params are optional with null defaults.

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 ('remove'), resource ('effect'), and scope ('from a track or speaker's effect chain'). This distinguishes it from add_effect_tool and list_effects_tool by action, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 set_effect_bypass_tool (which disables rather than removes) or list_effects_tool. No prerequisites, no context about when removal is appropriate versus bypassing.

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