effect_change_speed

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 only discloses the basic effect (changes tempo and pitch together) but does not mention whether the operation is destructive, if it modifies the original audio, or any other behavioral traits like idempotency or side effects.

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 very concise: one sentence for the purpose and one line for the parameter. It is front-loaded with the key action and contains no unnecessary 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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and a key distinction from siblings. However, it lacks any mention of return behavior or confirmation of application, and could be slightly more thorough for completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the 'percent' parameter with range (-99 to 4900) and an example ('100 = double speed'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default, though it could be more precise about the effect of negative values or zero.

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's purpose: 'Change speed of the selected audio (changes both tempo and pitch together).' It uses a specific verb ('change') and resource ('speed of selected audio'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like effect_change_pitch and effect_change_tempo by noting that it changes both together.

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 implies usage when both tempo and pitch should be changed together, hinting that separate tools exist for independent changes. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., if only tempo change is desired).

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