effect_reverb

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'selected audio' implying selection-based operation, and documents parameter ranges/defaults. However, it fails to disclose whether this is a destructive operation (modifies audio in place), whether it creates a new track, or if it requires specific preconditions like a noise profile.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by a well-organized Args block. While embedding parameter documentation in the description text is less ideal than rich schema descriptions, it is necessary given the schema deficiencies. No sentences are wasted.

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 10-parameter audio effect with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the parameters adequately but lacks workflow context. It omits critical information such as whether the effect is applied destructively, if the operation can be undone, or what happens when invoked without a selection.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the Args section in the description provides essential compensation by documenting all 10 parameters with units (ms, dB, percentage) and default values. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, though it could explain audio-specific concepts like 'wet' vs 'dry' signals for clarity.

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 (reverb effect), and target (selected audio). It distinguishes this from analysis tools (analyze_*) and editing tools (edit_*) in the sibling list. However, it does not differentiate from similar effect siblings like effect_echo or effect_phaser regarding when to use reverb specifically.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like effect_echo or effect_delay, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring audio to be selected first). The description only states what the tool does, not when to invoke it.

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