effect_clip_fix

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'reconstructing peaks' and uses 'Attempt' to suggest limitations, it fails to state whether the operation is destructive, modifies the selection in-place, creates new audio, or requires a specific track 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 compact with a clear functional statement followed by a structured Args section. No sentences are wasted; the information is front-loaded and directly relevant to invocation.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential inputs. However, it lacks critical contextual information about side effects, destructiveness, and integration with the audio editing workflow that would be necessary for an agent to use it confidently.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage. The description compensates effectively by documenting the single 'threshold' parameter with its semantics (percentage of max amplitude), valid range (0-100), and default value (95), which is sufficient for a one-parameter tool.

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 tool 'Attempt[s] to repair clipped (distorted) audio by reconstructing peaks,' providing a specific verb (repair) and resource (clipped audio). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'effect_repair' or clarify when to use this specific fix versus other correction methods.

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 when audio is clipped, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., whether to run analyze_find_clipping first), or when the repair attempt might fail.

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