effect_amplify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, successfully noting the selection prerequisite but omitting whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or risks clipping. It documents parameter constraints (> 0) but does not describe side effects of extreme ratio values.

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 consists of two high-value sentences followed by a clear Args documentation block, with zero redundant or filler content. Every element directly supports correct tool invocation and parameter configuration.

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 single-parameter audio effect without output schema, the description adequately covers invocation prerequisites and parameter semantics. It could be improved by noting behavioral traits like clipping risk or destructiveness, but is sufficient for basic usage.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the ratio parameter with semantic examples (1.5 = 150%, 0.5 = 50%), value constraints (Must be > 0), and default value (1.0). This provides complete semantic meaning beyond the schema's type definition.

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 provides a specific verb (amplify), target resource (selected audio), and mechanism (by a ratio), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like effect_reverb or analyze_beat_finder. It precisely defines the tool's scope as ratio-based amplitude modification.

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 instruction 'Select audio first' establishes a critical prerequisite for invocation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like normalize or limiter, and does not specify contraindications such as avoiding amplification that causes clipping.

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