effect_sliding_stretch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It says 'change tempo and/or pitch gradually' but does not clarify whether the effect is destructive, whether a selection is required, how it interacts with existing audio, or what happens after application. This is a meaningful gap for an effect tool.

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 one-sentence purpose is front-loaded and concise, and the Args block is structured and worth including because it supplies ranges, units, and defaults absent from the schema. No wasted words or redundant 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 four-parameter effect tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and all parameters. It remains incomplete on operational context such as whether the effect is applied destructively to the selection, whether a selection must exist, or what the resulting state is.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by documenting all four parameters with units, ranges, and defaults: 'Tempo change at start in % (-90 to 500)' and 'Pitch change at start in semitones (-12 to 12)'. This adds real semantic value beyond the bare schema titles and defaults.

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 action—'Change tempo and/or pitch gradually across the selection'—with a clear resource (the selection) and a distinctive mechanism ('sliding time stretch'). It is clear and tells an agent what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with closely related sibling tools like clip_stretch or effect_change_pitch.

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 implies the use case: apply this when you need gradual tempo and/or pitch changes across a selection. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative tools might be better for fixed pitch or speed changes.

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