effect_change_speed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully indicates the operation targets 'selected audio' and documents the parameter range (-99 to 4900) with an example (100 = double speed). However, it lacks explicit disclosure of whether the operation is destructive/modifies in-place, undo behavior, or error conditions (e.g., invalid selection).

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 appropriately concise with zero waste. It front-loads the primary action, uses a parenthetical for the key differentiating detail, and follows with a standard Args docstring format that efficiently documents the single parameter.

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 is substantially complete. It covers purpose, selection requirements, parameter semantics, and sibling differentiation. A minor gap exists regarding explicit destructive behavior disclosure, though this is somewhat implied by the 'effect_' naming convention and 'Change' verb.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (the schema only provides type and title), the description fully compensates by explaining the 'percent' parameter's semantic meaning ('Percentage change'), valid range constraints (-99 to 4900), and providing a concrete usage example ('100 = double speed').

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 specific action ('Change speed') and target ('selected audio'). Crucially, it distinguishes itself from siblings effect_change_pitch and effect_change_tempo by explicitly stating it 'changes both tempo and pitch together', making the scope unambiguous.

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 parenthetical '(changes both tempo and pitch together)' provides clear context for when to use this tool versus the sibling pitch-only or tempo-only alternatives. While it doesn't explicitly name the alternatives, the LLM can infer from the sibling tool names that this is the correct choice only when both attributes need modification.

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