effect_invert

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 states the transformation (phase inversion) but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether the selected audio is replaced, whether undo is available, or what the success/return behavior is. For a mutation tool, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The operation is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the practical use case is added in the second. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter effect tool, the description is mostly complete: it says what the tool does and when it is useful. The main gap is the lack of any mention of result or side-effect behavior, which is more noticeable because there is no output schema to fill that in.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description implicitly identifies the operand as 'the selected audio,' which is the only contextual detail needed. No parameter documentation is required beyond this.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Invert (flip phase) the selected audio.' The parenthetical 'flip phase' disambiguates from sibling tools like effect_reverse, which reverses time rather than polarity. It clearly identifies the operation and object.

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 a clear use context: 'Useful for phase cancellation.' This implies when an agent should consider using the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is enough context to route correctly among the many effect siblings.

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