generate_dtmf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but omits crucial behavioral context: it does not specify where the generated audio is placed (current track at cursor? new track? returned as data?), whether it overwrites existing content, or file format details. It does document parameter ranges (0-1, 0-100) which provides some behavioral constraint information.

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 one-sentence purpose statement followed by an Args block. Every element earns its place. The dense formatting of the Args section is slightly informal but remains readable. No redundant or wasted text.

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 this is a generation tool with no output schema, the description should specify the disposition of the generated audio (insertion point, track behavior). While parameter documentation is complete, the missing 'what happens to the output' context represents a significant gap for an audio editing tool with project/track state implications.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates excellently by documenting all 4 parameters in the Args block: sequence (valid characters 0-9, A-D, *, #), duty_cycle (percentage semantics), amplitude (0-1 scale), and duration (seconds unit). This fully compensates for the schema deficiency.

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 the specific action 'Generate' and resource 'DTMF (telephone) tones', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_tone, generate_chirp, and generate_noise. The parenthetical '(telephone)' adds helpful domain context.

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 this tool versus similar alternatives like generate_tone, or when DTMF tones are appropriate (e.g., automated phone system testing vs. musical applications). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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