generate_noise

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 behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool fills the selected time range and depends on a prior selection, but it does not disclose whether existing audio in that range is overwritten, whether the operation is destructive or undoable, or what the tool returns. For a generation/mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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 front-loads the most important behavioral fact about the selected time range. Every sentence earns its place, though 'Generate noise' is mildly redundant with the tool name and the Args block partially duplicates the schema.

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 two-parameter generator with no output schema or annotations, it covers the key invocation setup: how duration is determined and what parameter values are allowed. It leaves gaps around side effects (whether existing audio is replaced or mixed), behavior when no selection exists, and the call result/status, which prevents it from being fully complete.

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 schema provides only types and defaults, so the description adds meaningful value by listing the exact allowed values for noise_type ('White', 'Pink', 'Brownian') and the numeric range for amplitude (0-1). Amplitude's precise meaning is still not fully explained, so this is not a 5.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Generate noise') and a concrete resource/effect ('fills the currently selected time range'), with allowed noise types that distinguish it from tone/chirp/silence generators. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives a clear procedural prerequisite ('call select_region first to control duration') and implies this is the tool for noise rather than tones or silence. However, it never explicitly mentions when to prefer this over sibling generation tools or states any exclusions, so the guidance is mostly implied.

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