effect_remove_dc_offset

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core effect, the peak-level preservation, and the fact that it takes no parameters. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether a selection is required, or what happens if no audio is selected.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and the second provides implementation context. The second sentence is slightly verbose with versioning/verification details, but it still earns its place by clarifying the relationship to normalize().

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, parameterless effect tool, the description covers the main operational facts: what it does, what it preserves, and that no parameters are needed. It could be more complete by clarifying selection requirements and side effects, but the low complexity keeps the gap modest.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already reflects that, but the description explicitly confirms 'Takes no parameters.' This removes any ambiguity and meets the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove DC offset from the selected audio'. It also adds a meaningful constraint ('without changing its peak level') and distinguishes this tool from the related normalize() tool by describing it as the DC-only variant with volume normalization disabled.

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 gives useful context by relating the tool to normalize() and specifying the exact parameter mode (ApplyVolume=0), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over normalize() or other effects. The intended use case is implied by the name and first sentence rather than stated as selection guidance.

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