set_effect_envelope

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that any subset of parameters can be set (at least one required) and returns a string result. However, it does not disclose whether settings overwrite or merge with existing envelope, or if the operation is destructive.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for usage constraints, and one for return type. It is front-loaded with no extra 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?

Given the tool has 4 nullable parameters and no nested objects, the description covers the basic operation and return type. However, it lacks details about parameter semantics and does not provide enough context among many sibling effect tools.

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 coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description only repeats the parameter names (attack, decay, delay, fade) without adding units, ranges, or behavior. This does little to compensate for the lack of schema information.

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 clearly states the tool sets effect envelope parameters (attack, decay, delay, fade) on the selection. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_effect_phase' by naming specific parameters. However, it does not explain what an 'envelope' is, which may be unclear to agents unfamiliar with audio effects.

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 mentions 'on the selection' implying the tool acts on a current selection, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites or when not to use it.

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