effect_crossfade_clips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it mentions the selection requirement, it fails to disclose that this is a destructive mutation of audio data, lacks information about crossfade duration/curve, and omits reversibility or authorization requirements.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first defines the action, second states the prerequisite. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 destructive audio effect, the description covers the basic operation and selection requirement, but lacks critical behavioral details like crossfade duration, whether parameters are configurable elsewhere, or undo behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation operation.

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 zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per rubric guidelines. The description adds necessary context by explaining that the tool operates on the 'junction point' between clips (the implicit selection/cursor position), which compensates for the empty input 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 description clearly states the specific action (crossfade) and resource (clips), with the critical constraint 'on the same track' that distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'effect_crossfade_tracks'. The scope is precisely defined.

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 second sentence provides an explicit prerequisite ('Select the junction point between two clips first'), which is essential usage guidance for this stateful operation. However, it could explicitly contrast with 'effect_crossfade_tracks' to clarify when to use each.

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