effect_repair

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the effect will refuse to run on longer regions, which is a real behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether the operation is destructive, whether it can be undone, or what happens after successful repair.

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 brief sentences, no filler, and the most actionable constraint is front-loaded. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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 no-parameter effect tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisite and the key limitation. It could be slightly more complete by noting side effects or success/error behavior, but it is adequate for an agent to attempt the tool correctly.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds important operational meaning by explaining that the affected region is determined by the current selection rather than by parameters.

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 verb ('repair') and resource ('a very short damaged section of audio') and adds the crucial constraint that the region is at most a few dozen samples. This clearly distinguishes it from broader audio effects and other editing tools.

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 concrete usage context: the user must select the damaged region first, and the region must be extremely short or the effect will refuse to run. It does not explicitly name an alternative for longer regions, but it provides enough guidance for correct invocation.

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