effect

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

With no annotations, the description usefully discloses that adding appends syntax to the session pattern and that removal is potentially broad, stripping every matching effect call rather than only the last. It does not explain error handling, removal of a nonexistent effect, or whether changes affect playback immediately.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose, followed by exact mutation semantics, an important removal warning, an example, and sibling routing. Every sentence contributes practical selection or invocation information without 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?

For a simple four-parameter session-pattern mutation, this supplies nearly everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly, with the schema covering the remaining session parameter. The main omissions are result feedback and edge-case behavior, which matter somewhat more because there is no output schema.

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 already 100%, and the description adds meaningful semantics by showing how action, effect, and params combine into `.<effect>(<params>)`. The lpf example makes the expected string parameters concrete, while session_id remains adequately documented by the schema.

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 opening sentence gives specific actions, resource, and scope: adding or removing a Strudel effect on the current session pattern. The final sentence also distinguishes it from shape for effect bundles and transform for raw transforms.

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?

It explains how action=add and action=remove differ and provides a concrete add invocation. Explicit routing to shape for mood/energy/refine bundles and transform for raw transforms gives clear sibling-selection guidance.

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