effect_reverse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It establishes the selection prerequisite but fails to clarify whether the operation is destructive (modifies in-place), what happens if no region is selected (error vs no-op), or performance characteristics for long selections.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the action, the second states the prerequisite. Information is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential information (action + prerequisite). A perfect score would require noting the destructive nature or error conditions, but the description is sufficient for successful invocation.

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 zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by referencing the external selection state ('Select a region first'), which compensates for the empty input schema by clarifying the implicit input requirement.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reverse') and resource ('audio'), clearly distinguishing this time-based manipulation from sibling effects like effect_invert (phase inversion) or effect_echo. The scope is immediately understood.

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 prerequisite 'Select a region first' provides essential context for when the tool can be invoked, implying it requires an active selection. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from similar temporal effects or guidance on when to prefer this over effect_change_speed.

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