set_audio_track_volume

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, so the write/idempotent nature is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that keys are written (key_count, keys_written) and that the asset is auto-saved (saved, save_error), which the annotations do not reveal.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a return-shape block. The return block is verbose but justified because no output schema exists. No filler text.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully documents the return object, and the annotations cover the safety profile. For a 5-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, the main gap is the lack of explicit routing to sibling tools, but it is otherwise complete enough to call correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented, including the time_seconds 'omit to set constant' semantics. The description restates the default-vs-time distinction but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Set the SoundVolume channel on an audio section.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutations like set_audio_track_pitch or set_audio_section_properties. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 parenthetical '(default value or at a specific time)' implies the two usage modes, and the schema clarifies omitting time_seconds sets the constant value. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternative tools for related audio-section edits, so usage is only implied.

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