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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds substantial context beyond that: it explains the exact effect (enabled=true vs false), the latency-compensated hard ceiling, and that it returns the project identity. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with 'PROJECT-SCOPED' and packs essential details into two sentences. It could be slightly more concise (the technical specifics about LUFS and dBTP are dense) but every sentence earns its place by clarifying behavior and scope.

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?

The description mentions that the call returns the project identity with its result, which covers the return value since no output schema exists. It also explains the effect on both preview and export. It omits any mention of error conditions or prerequisites beyond the project_id, but for a boolean toggle with a scoped project, this is sufficient.

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 50% (only project_id has a description). The description compensates for the undocumented 'enabled' parameter by clearly explaining its true/false behavior and its effect on the mix. For project_id, the schema already explains the required scope, so the description's reiteration is redundant but harmless.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('normalizes the FINAL MIX') and resource (the project's loudness), with a concrete target (-14 LUFS, -2 dBTP). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly scoping to the final mix and noting it does not affect the voice/music/sfx balance, separating it from gain/volume 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 gives a concrete use case ('the fix for the export sounds quiet on TikTok/YouTube') and clarifies that it changes loudness, not balance, which implicitly warns against using it for mix balancing. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it leaves some inference to the agent.

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