effect_reverse

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does state the core behavior and the selection requirement, but it does not disclose whether the effect is destructive/in-place, whether it can be undone, or what happens if no region is selected. These are meaningful gaps given the absence of annotations.

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 deliver the action and the key prerequisite with no filler. The description is front-loaded, easy to parse, and 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, no-output-schema effect tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the operation and the precondition. It could add notes about undoability or in-place modification, but those are not required for an agent to invoke it successfully after selecting a region.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description sensibly treats the selected region as the implicit operand and gives the prerequisite for it, which is sufficient since no formal parameters exist.

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 action ('Reverse') on a specific resource ('the selected audio'), so an agent can understand the tool's core purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from audio-inversion siblings like effect_invert, but 'reverse' is unambiguous enough in the audio context.

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?

'Select a region first' provides an explicit, actionable prerequisite and tells the agent the required precondition before invoking the tool. It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5, but it gives clear context beyond the tool name.

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