effect_crossfade_tracks

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. It explains the selection-based input model but omits crucial details: whether the operation is destructive, what happens to the underlying audio data (volume curves, overlap handling), or any side effects on track structure.

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 highly efficient sentences with zero waste. The first establishes purpose, the second provides operational prerequisites. Every word earns its place in guiding the agent.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and explicit parameters, the description adequately covers the manual workflow required. However, for an audio effect tool, it should disclose whether changes are reversible or destructive, and the nature of the crossfade algorithm applied.

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 parameters (empty object), establishing a baseline of 4. The description implicitly documents the implicit inputs (the two selected overlapping tracks) and their required state, adding necessary context beyond the empty 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 target resource ('two overlapping tracks'), distinguishing it from sibling 'effect_crossfade_clips' by specifying the track-level scope. It effectively communicates the core function in the first sentence.

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 explicit prerequisites ('Align the tracks so they overlap, select both'), functioning as usage guidelines for this stateful tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over 'effect_crossfade_clips' or warnings about requirements.

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