effect_paulstretch

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It honestly communicates the performance tradeoff (smaller time_resolution = slower) and the selection precondition, and describes the resulting texture. However, it does not state whether the effect destructively modifies the selected audio, whether it is reversible, or what the command returns.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then a one-line prerequisite, then a focused Args block. Every sentence adds useful information; 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 an unannotated mutation-style effect with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and both parameters well. Clear gaps remain around whether the operation is destructive/undoable and what the resulting audio behavior or return status is, so it is only minimally 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?

The description adds full semantic meaning beyond the bare schema: stretch_factor is explained with concrete reference points (1.0 = no change, 10.0 = 10x longer) and time_resolution is given a quality/performance tradeoff plus a lower bound (>=0.00099). With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates.

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 identifies a specific operation ('Extreme time-stretch effect') and its sonic purpose ('creates ambient/drone textures'), which distinguishes it from sibling stretch tools like effect_sliding_stretch. The 'Select audio first' prerequisite further clarifies what it operates on.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Select audio first,' giving a clear precondition. The 'extreme time-stretch / ambient/drone' framing implies when it is appropriate, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it relative to effect_sliding_stretch or clip_stretch.

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