effect_amplify

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. It explains the linear scaling behavior, gives a default of 1.0, and importantly discloses that the default behavior limits the result unless allow_clipping is set to true. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not mention whether the effect is destructive or how limiting is implemented.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a tight Args block. Every sentence adds value, and the examples are efficient. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter effect tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: target audio, parameter semantics, ranges, defaults, and the clipping-versus-limiting behavior. It is slightly thin on side effects like destructiveness or undo behavior, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does. The ratio parameter gets examples, decibel equivalents, a range, and a default. The allow_clipping parameter gets its behavioral consequence and default. Both parameters are fully enriched beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Amplify (or attenuate) the selected audio by a linear ratio.' This is clear and distinct enough from the general idea of effects. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like normalize or limiter, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are named. The usage is implied by the description: use it when you want simple linear gain or attenuation. But an agent must infer when to choose this over normalize, compressor, or limiter from the sibling list, which is not spelled out.

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