effect_reverb

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

No behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the basic description. Important aspects like whether the operation is destructive, whether it requires a selection, or any side effects (e.g., permanent modification to audio) are not mentioned. Without annotations, the burden on the description is higher, but it fails to provide these details.

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 concise, with a single clear introductory sentence followed by a well-organized bullet list of parameters. Each parameter is explained in a single line without extra fluff. The structure is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 explains all parameters and states the basic action. However, it could be improved by mentioning that the effect applies to the current selection or temporary clip, and by giving a brief overview of the reverb algorithm (e.g., 'emulates a room') to set expectations. With no output schema, the description is mostly complete but lacks a high-level description of the effect's behavior.

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 description provides detailed parameter explanations with ranges and defaults for all 10 parameters (e.g., 'room_size: Room size percentage (0-100). Default: 75'). Since the schema itself has no descriptions (0% coverage), the description fully compensates, enabling correct parameter usage.

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 starts with 'Apply reverb effect to the selected audio', which clearly states the action (apply), the resource (reverb effect), and the context (selected audio). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like effect_echo or effect_amplify.

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 versus alternatives such as other reverb tools or audio effects. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to avoid, or which scenarios are best suited for this effect.

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