effect_wahwah

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 but only mentions it applies to 'selected audio'. It fails to state whether this is destructive (modifies in place), what happens if no audio is selected, or what the wahwah effect actually sounds like (modulated filter sweep).

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 sentence followed by an Args section. While the Args format is informal for MCP (belongs in schema), it's necessary here due to zero schema coverage. No redundant or wasteful content.

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 5-parameter audio effect with no output schema, the description adequately covers the parameters but leaves gaps in behavioral context. It should clarify prerequisites (active selection required), side effects (destructive modification), and musical use cases given the complexity of the tool.

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 description excellently compensates by documenting all 5 parameters with units (Hz, degrees), valid ranges (0.1-4.0, 0-360), and default values (1.5, 0, 70, 2.5, 30). This is critical since the schema provides no descriptions.

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 'Apply wahwah effect to the selected audio' with a specific verb (Apply), resource (wahwah effect), and target (selected audio). It distinguishes itself from siblings like effect_phaser or effect_tremolo by specifying the unique wahwah effect type.

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 no guidance on when to use wahwah versus similar modulation effects (effect_phaser, effect_tremolo), no prerequisites (e.g., audio must be selected first), and no warnings about destructive editing. It merely states what it does, not when to use it.

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