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

Annotations indicate mutating (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds the crucial detail that it only affects the original footage's audio, not added tracks. It discloses caching behavior and the non-surgical nature on dense mixes, enriching the annotation context without contradiction.

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 information-dense yet well-organized: scope warning first, then usage intent, then parameter semantics, then exclusions and caveats. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

Covers scope, usage, parameter semantics, caching, and limitations. With no output schema, it still states the call returns the project identity. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 only 33% (only project_id documented). The description fills the gap for music_gain_db and voice_gain_db with concrete effects (e.g., -60 mutes, -12 ducks, 0 untouched) and the valid range (-60..+6), making the parameters self-explanatory.

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?

Clearly states it rebalances original footage's music vs speech, with concrete examples of user requests. It explicitly distinguishes from added music tracks (add_music/remove_music), so it's unambiguous and differentiated from siblings.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use scenarios (e.g., 'remove the background music but keep the talking') and when-not-to-use (added music tracks), naming the alternative tools. Also warns about limitations on dense mixes, leaving no ambiguity.

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