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

Annotations only say it mutates and is not destructive; the description adds that it changes clip volumes from measured loudness, that music/SFX are excluded by default, and that exports are subsequently levelled as a whole to -14 LUFS. That export-wide side effect is valuable context beyond the annotations, though reversibility/undo behavior and whether existing volume automation is overwritten are not stated.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior and no filler sentences; each sentence carries information. The default-scope sentence is somewhat densely packed and grammatically tangled, which costs a little readability.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, default scope, override parameter, and the downstream export effect. It would be complete at a 5 if it stated whether the volume change is destructive/undoable and how it interacts with existing clip volume settings.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description compensates usefully: it explains what happens when `clipIds` is omitted (the default scope of all non-music/SFX clips) and gives practical guidance for `target` beyond the schema's bare 'LUFS' note (-16 for speech, default = typical loudness of the clips).

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?

States a concrete verb and outcome: it sets each clip's volume from its file's measured LUFS so clips sound equally loud. This is clearly distinguishable from adjacent audio siblings such as set_ducking, detach_audio, or set_voice_cleanup, which do different things.

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?

Explains the default selection scope (every clip with sound except music and SFX, matched to typical loudness) and when to override it with `target`, including a concrete example (-16 for speech). It does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, so it stops just short of a 5.

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