effect_paulstretch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the prerequisite state (audio must be selected) and hints at performance characteristics via the time_resolution parameter explanation. However, it fails to explicitly state whether the effect is destructive (modifies selection) or creates new audio, a significant omission for an audio processing tool.

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 efficiently structured with the purpose statement first, followed by the critical prerequisite, then the Args documentation. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or filler text.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description successfully covers the essential semantics and prerequisites. It is nearly complete but would benefit from explicitly stating the destructive/mutative nature of the effect.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to fully compensate. It excellently documents both parameters: stretch_factor explains the scaling logic (1.0 = no change) with examples, and time_resolution clarifies the quality/speed trade-off and units (seconds). This adds substantial semantic value beyond the raw 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 identifies this as an 'Extreme time-stretch effect' and specifies the creative output ('creates ambient/drone textures'). The term 'Extreme' and the texture description effectively distinguish it from sibling time-manipulation tools like effect_change_speed or effect_sliding_stretch.

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 provides the critical prerequisite 'Select audio first,' indicating when the tool can be used. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like effect_change_speed or effect_change_tempo, though the 'ambient/drone' hint implies the use case.

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