effect_tremolo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden but only minimally satisfies it. While it mentions the scope ('selected audio'), it fails to state whether the operation is destructive (modifies audio in place), whether it can be undone, or if it creates new tracks—critical information for audio editing tools.

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 one-sentence purpose statement followed by a well-organized Args block. No sentences are wasted, though the docstring format (Args:) is slightly less integrated than pure prose.

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 three-parameter input and lack of output schema, the description adequately documents parameters but leaves behavioral gaps. For a destructive audio operation with no annotations, it should explicitly state the mutation nature and any selection requirements rather than just implying them.

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?

The Args section fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage by providing detailed semantics for all three parameters: frequency includes range (1-1000) and unit (Hz), depth specifies percentage range (0-100), and waveform maps integer values to semantic types (Sine, Triangle, etc.).

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 specific action ('Apply tremolo'), defines it parenthetically as 'volume oscillation', and identifies the target ('selected audio'). This effectively distinguishes it from the numerous sibling effect tools (effect_echo, effect_reverb, etc.) by specifying the exact audio processing technique.

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 prerequisites by referencing 'selected audio', indicating a selection must exist. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose tremolo over similar modulation effects (like effect_phaser or effect_wahwah) or whether it applies to the whole track when partially selected.

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