effect_fade_out

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but reveals minimal behavioral traits. It does not specify whether the fade is destructive (modifies underlying audio), the duration/curve of the fade, or what occurs if no region is selected. The term 'Apply' suggests mutation but lacks explicit confirmation.

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 exactly two sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the action and target, while the second provides the necessary prerequisite. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter audio effect tool, the description meets minimum viability by stating the effect type and selection prerequisite. However, given the rich ecosystem of similar fade tools (fade_in, studio_fade_out, adjustable_fade), the omission of distinguishing characteristics (fade curve, duration control, specific use cases) leaves significant contextual gaps.

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 contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description correctly implies through the prerequisite instruction that audio selection happens via UI state rather than function arguments, which aligns with 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 core action ('Apply a fade-out') and target ('selected audio'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar siblings like effect_studio_fade_out or effect_adjustable_fade, leaving ambiguity about which specific fade algorithm or behavior is used.

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 includes a critical prerequisite ('Select the region to fade first'), implying this tool operates on the current UI selection rather than accepting parameters. However, it fails to specify when to choose this over alternatives like effect_studio_fade_out or effect_fade_in, or what constitutes valid selection criteria.

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