effect_clip_fix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the effect does but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether a selection is required, whether it returns a status, or how it affects existing audio. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a processing tool.

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-sentence purpose statement followed by a terse argument list. There is no filler, and the primary behavior is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the core invocation information is present. However, the absence of annotations and lack of any mention of side effects, selection requirements, return/status behavior, or alternative tools leaves clear gaps. It is minimally usable but not fully complete for confident selection among similar effect tools.

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%, and the description fully compensates: it defines threshold as a clipping threshold percent with a 0–100 range and default 95.0, and gain_db as a gain adjustment in dB with a -30 to 0 range and default -9.0. This adds units, ranges, and defaults that the JSON schema lacks.

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 object: repairing clipped/distorted peaks in selected audio. The phrase 'clipped (distorted)' clarifies the exact problem and 'selected audio' scopes the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate it from similar siblings like effect_repair or limiter, but the verb+resource combination is clear.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the selected audio has clipped or distorted peaks. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, even though siblings such as effect_repair, limiter, and auto_cleanup_audio may overlap. The usage context is present but only implicit.

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