track_resample

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

No annotations provided, yet description fails to disclose whether operation is destructive (modifies audio data), whether quality loss occurs, or what the return value indicates. Only constraint documented is 'Must be > 0' for the rate parameter.

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?

Extremely efficient two-sentence structure. First sentence establishes purpose; second sentence (via Args format) documents the single parameter with examples. 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?

Adequate for a single-parameter tool with no output schema, but lacks disclosure of destructive behavior and return semantics. Given zero annotations, should explicitly state that this modifies the track's underlying audio data.

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 fully compensates by documenting the unit (Hz), providing concrete examples (44100, 48000, 96000), and stating the constraint (> 0). Adds essential context missing from schema.

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?

Description states specific verb 'Resample' with clear resource 'selected track' and outcome 'new sample rate'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling effect_change_speed and track_set_properties by specifying the sample rate conversion operation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like effect_change_speed (which changes perceived speed) or when resampling is appropriate. No mention of prerequisites like requiring a track selection.

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