effect_sliding_stretch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully conveys the sliding/variable behavior ('gradually'), but lacks disclosure on whether the operation is destructive, modifies audio in-place, or creates new tracks. It also omits performance characteristics or prerequisites like requiring an active selection.

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?

Perfectly structured with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a clear Args section. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place by conveying either the core function or essential parameter constraints.

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 4 parameters with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description successfully documents all inputs with ranges and units. Minor gap: it doesn't clarify the output behavior (whether the effect applies to current selection in-place or creates new audio), though this is somewhat implied by the 'effect_' naming convention.

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?

Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage. The Args section provides critical semantic details absent from the schema: units (% for tempo, semitones for pitch), valid ranges (-99 to 3000, -12 to 12), and the start/end interpolation logic. Without this, the agent would not understand the parameter constraints or meanings.

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 tool changes 'tempo and/or pitch gradually across the selection' with the specific mechanism 'sliding time stretch.' This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like effect_change_pitch and effect_change_tempo (which presumably apply static changes) by emphasizing the gradual/sliding nature.

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 implies the use case through 'gradually' (variable changes over time), but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to static alternatives like effect_change_tempo. The agent must infer when sliding versus constant changes are appropriate.

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