sfx_tweak

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a good job disclosing key behavior: JSON merge patch semantics, wholesale list replacement, and the requirement to send the full layers list. It does not mention side effects like overwriting output files, but the core behavioral trait is clearly explained.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core operation front-loaded, followed by concrete examples and an important caveat about list replacement. Every sentence adds value and there is 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?

The description covers the non-obvious merge-patch semantics and list replacement behavior, which is the main complexity of this tool. With an output schema present, return-value documentation is not needed, though a note on when to choose this over sfx_render would make it fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the patch object thoroughly with examples and notes that sound_id can be an id or WAV path, but it never explains the out_dir parameter, leaving one of the three parameters undocumented.

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 a specific action: apply a JSON merge patch to a previous render and re-render. It also distinguishes this from a fresh render by explicitly targeting a previous render by id or WAV path, which separates it from sibling tools like sfx_render.

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 context of tweaking an existing render is implied through 'previous render', and the examples show what kinds of edits are intended. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of sfx_render or sfx_variations, and no exclusions are stated.

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