effect_adjustable_fade

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so excellently. It discloses a live-confirmed crash for multi-clip selections, the unguarded assert name, and that a clean single-clip selection was confirmed to work. This is far beyond typical effect-tool documentation.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the Args section is scannable. The crash warning is slightly verbose with repeated 'confirmed live' phrasing, but the length is justified because the precondition is critical to safe 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?

The description covers all parameters, defaults, units, and the critical crash edge case, which is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not describe return values or whether the effect is destructive/undoable, but the core invocation requirements are complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description documents every parameter: fade_type allowed values and default, mid_fade_adjust_percent range, units meaning ('Percent' or 'dB'), and start_level/end_level semantics. This adds meaning that the bare schema cannot convey.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Apply a customizable fade to the selected audio.' The phrase 'customizable' plus the parameter list (fade_type, levels, mid-fade adjustment) clearly distinguishes it from simpler siblings like effect_fade_in and effect_fade_out.

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 gives explicit, actionable usage context: a single-clip selection is required, and violating that precondition causes a crash. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to prefer this over simpler fade tools, but the selection guidance is strong and concrete.

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