effect_vocal_reduction

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 explains the six action variants and mentions 'stereo track' context, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether the effect modifies audio in-place or creates new tracks, destructiveness, reversibility, or output format.

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?

Efficient documentation-style structure with clear separation between purpose statement and parameter definitions. No redundant or filler text; every line provides specific technical detail necessary for invocation.

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 schema descriptions and no output schema, the description adequately covers input parameters. However, it omits important contextual details like whether the effect applies to the current selection or entire project, and what success/failure indicators look like since no output schema exists to document returns.

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 comprehensive semantics for all four parameters: action (complete enum mapping), low_cutoff/high_cutoff (units in Hz), and strength (valid range 0-50), plus all default values.

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 opens with a clear, specific action: 'remove or isolate vocals from a stereo track.' This distinct verb+resource combination clearly distinguishes it from sibling effect tools (e.g., effect_reverb, effect_echo) and analysis tools.

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 provides implicit usage guidance through the detailed Args section explaining each action value (0-5), but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives like noise_reduction or analyze_* tools, and doesn't mention prerequisites like audio selection requirements.

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