Apply a delay intent

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds important behaviors: feedback clamping (<=100% unless intensity>0.9 with self-oscillation warning), undo-able group, and returns readback strings. This goes beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and key details. Every sentence provides valuable information without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (implied from context), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, key behavior, and return type. Minor omission is lack of detail on track parameter, but overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 50% (track and intensity lack description). The description clarifies 'time division / feedback / wet / feedback-cut' explaining what the intent affects, and details intensity clamping behavior. This compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 verb 'apply delay intent' on the resource 'Fruity Delay', lists the parameters affected (time division, feedback, wet, feedback-cut), and notes it is undo-able. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compression, EQ, reverb intents.

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 for adjusting musical delay characteristics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other audio effect intents or alternative methods. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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