AudacityMCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Documents parameter constraints (ranges, defaults) but fails to disclose whether operation is destructive, what happens if no audio is selected, or undo/reversibility characteristics. Missing critical behavioral context for an audio modification 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?

Uses an Args block format that is information-dense with zero fluff. Slightly unconventional structure for MCP descriptions (typically more prose-oriented), but every line earns its place by documenting parameter behavior.

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?

Comprehensive parameter documentation satisfies basic requirements, but given zero annotations and no output schema, the description lacks operational context: no error handling details, no mention of destructive vs non-destructive behavior, and no return value information.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all 6 parameters with precise semantics: stages (2-24, even only), dry_wet (0=dry, 255=wet), frequency (LFO frequency in Hz), phase (degrees), depth (0-255), and feedback (percentage -100 to 100). All defaults provided.

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?

States specific action (Apply) and target (phaser effect to selected audio). Distinguishes from siblings like effect_echo or effect_reverb by naming the specific effect type, though it doesn't explain the musical characteristics that differentiate phaser from similar modulation effects.

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?

Implies audio must be selected via 'selected audio' phrase, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., minimum selection length), and no comparison to similar modulation effects like effect_tremolo or effect_wahwah.

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