effect_distortion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates the effect applies to 'selected audio' (implying destructive, in-place modification), but fails to disclose whether the operation is reversible, if it requires specific track types, or performance characteristics like real-time vs. rendered processing.

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 brief with a clear action statement followed by structured parameter documentation. The Args format, while informal, efficiently delivers necessary parameter semantics without redundancy given the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 2-parameter effect tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic contract but leaves gaps. It doesn't enumerate valid distortion_type values, explain what 'Hard Clipping' means, or describe error states (e.g., no selection). It meets minimum viability but lacks richness for robust agent 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args section compensates effectively by documenting both parameters with types, valid ranges (-100 to 0 for threshold), and default values. It adds semantic meaning beyond the schema property names, though it omits enumeration values for distortion_type.

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 (Apply), resource (distortion effect), and target (selected audio). However, it lacks differentiation from sibling effect tools (effect_reverb, effect_echo, etc.), leaving the agent to infer when distortion is appropriate versus other modifications.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor prerequisites such as requiring an active audio selection. The phrase 'selected audio' implies a selection must exist, but doesn't explicitly warn about failure conditions or suggest alternatives like effect_clip_fix for different use cases.

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