effect_tremolo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It says 'apply' but does not state whether the operation destructively modifies the audio, whether it is reversible, what happens if no audio is selected, or what the tool returns. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating 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 description is compact and well structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a clean parameter list. Every line provides necessary information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema metadata that would be redundant.

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?

Parameter documentation is complete and the target 'selected audio' is stated, which covers the main calling context. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits behavioral context such as side effects, prerequisites beyond selection, and success/failure behavior, leaving the tool less than fully self-contained.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by documenting all four parameters: wave_type with exact value-to-waveform mapping, phase_degrees with range, wet_percent with range, and lfo_hz with units and range. It also provides defaults for every parameter, going well beyond the schema.

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 and target: 'Apply a tremolo (amplitude modulation) effect to the selected audio.' The parenthetical defines the effect, and the tool name plus effect type clearly distinguish it from sibling effect 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 implies when to use this tool—when a tremolo effect is desired on selected audio—but it does not explicitly explain when not to use it or how it compares to alternative effect workflows such as add_realtime_effect. Usage guidance is present but only implied through the effect name.

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