apply_audio_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior, but it only states the basic action. It omits whether effects are replaced or stacked, whether changes are undoable, or what happens if the effect name is invalid. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded and easy to scan. It contains no filler, though it is terse.

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?

For a tool with three parameters including a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks information about the effect's placement in the signal chain, parameter format, or return behavior, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action and target ('Applies an audio effect to a clip') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the general 'apply_effect' sibling but does not explicitly mention that it operates on a single clip, which could be confused with 'apply_audio_effect_to_all_clips'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'apply_effect' or 'apply_audio_effect_to_all_clips'. There is no mention of prerequisites, effect selection, or workflow context.

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