effect_change_tempo

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It provides valuable constraint information (range -95 to 3000) and examples, but lacks safety context such as whether the operation is destructive, requires a selection, or can be undone.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first states purpose and differentiation, the second documents the parameter with constraints and examples. No redundancy or 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 single-parameter effect tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics and constraints. Minor gap: does not explicitly confirm behavior when selection is missing or if the effect applies in-place.

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 description fully compensates by documenting the percent parameter's valid range, directionality (positive/negative), and concrete examples (50% faster, 25% slower).

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 (Change), resource (tempo of selected audio), and critical differentiator (without changing pitch), which distinguishes it from siblings like effect_change_pitch and effect_change_speed.

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 phrase 'without changing pitch' implies usage (when pitch preservation is needed), but there are no explicit when-to-use guidelines, exclusions, or named alternatives like effect_change_speed.

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