generate_chirp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly documents all parameters but fails to disclose operational behavior: whether this creates a new track, overwrites a selection, requires a project to be open, or what it returns.

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 front-loaded with the purpose statement followed by an Args section. While the multiline Args format is slightly verbose, it is necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions, and every line provides 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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately documents inputs but is incomplete regarding side effects (e.g., where the generated audio is placed in the project). For a generation tool, this operational context is missing.

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 schema has 0% description coverage (titles only). The description fully compensates by documenting all 6 parameters with types (waveform options), units (Hz, seconds), valid ranges (0-1 for amplitude), and defaults, providing complete semantic coverage.

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 'Generate a chirp (frequency sweep),' providing a specific verb and resource. The parenthetical 'frequency sweep' effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like generate_tone (static) and generate_dtmf.

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?

While the 'frequency sweep' designation implies usage for sweeping tones versus static tones, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over generate_tone or other generation tools, nor any mention of prerequisites.

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