select_zero_crossing

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that selection boundaries are adjusted to zero crossings and why that matters. However, it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., an existing selection), whether the operation is reversible, or whether it affects only the selection and not the underlying audio.

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, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The 'useful before cuts' rationale adds purpose without bloating the description.

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 parameterless tool acting on the current selection, the description is largely complete: it says what it does, why it is useful, and when to use it. The only minor gap is no mention of alternatives or edge cases, but the tool is simple enough that this is acceptable.

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 and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters.This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Adjust the current selection boundaries') and a clear resource ('current selection boundaries'), and explains its purpose ('nearest zero crossings'). It is clear and distinguishes itself from cut operations, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'nearest_zero_crossing'.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Useful before cuts to avoid audible clicks at edit points.' This tells an agent the practical scenario, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like edit_cut or nearest_zero_crossing.

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