effect_notch_filter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the operation mutates the selected audio and gives parameter meaning/constraints, but it does not state whether the effect is reversible, requires a selection, or processes the whole track if no selection exists. Adequate for a simple effect but with gaps.

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 in a single sentence, followed by a compact two-line Args section. Every sentence adds information: what it does, example use, and parameter constraints/defaults. No filler.

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 effect with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the scope ('selected audio'), example usage, and full parameter semantics. It would be more complete if it mentioned reversibility or behavior when no selection exists, but these are minor given the simplicity.

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%, yet the description fully documents both parameters: frequency_hz has units, a constraint (>0), and default; q has units, range (0.1-1000), default, and qualitative meaning ('narrowness'). The description compensates completely for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb ('Apply'), a precise resource ('notch filter'), and the desired outcome ('remove a narrow frequency band'), with a concrete example (mains hum). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling effects like normalize or click_removal without requiring the schema.

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 'e.g. mains hum' example implies the appropriate use case (removing a narrow unwanted band), but the description never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as click_removal or noise_reduction, nor does it give exclusions. Usage guidance is implied, not explicit.

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