Edit local audio

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

Annotations only declare write/openWorld/idempotency/destructive flags; the description adds real behavioral context: compressed input is decoded in bounded packets, output is PCM16/Float32 WAV, all encoded samples are verified, and clipping plus bounded decoder priming omissions are reported. It also clarifies no network access, consistent with openWorldHint=false. Not a full 5 since it omits what happens to an existing output file and whether partial output is left on failure.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the operations and followed by format/verification detail, with no filler. The closing clause about 'the existing website effects and local browser' is slightly vague and adds less than the rest, but overall the text earns its space.

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 9-parameter local file mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers input formats, output format, verification and diagnostics, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is parameter interaction (volume_mode vs gain_db/normalize_db) and behavior when output_path already exists.

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 only 22% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does partially: it maps reverse, speed with optional pitch preservation (keep_pitch), gain vs peak-normalize (volume_mode), and PCM16/Float32 output (bits). But gain_db, normalize_db (and their mutual exclusivity with volume_mode), and the speed range limits are never explained, leaving nearly half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

Specific verbs and resource: reverse, speed change with optional pitch preservation, gain/peak-normalize on named audio formats, writing WAV output. An agent can immediately tell this is an audio-transformation tool rather than a trim/extract tool. However, it never names or contrasts with the closest siblings (abox_audio_trim, abox_audio_extract), so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 lists what operations exist but never states when to choose this tool over abox_audio_trim or abox_audio_extract, nor any prerequisites or exclusions (e.g. what happens if no transform parameter is set). Usage must be inferred entirely from the operation list.

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