compressor

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains each parameter's effect and includes a warning about normalize=True causing re-peaking. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies the selected audio in-place or returns a new file, but this is likely implicit for an effect tool. Overall, it is transparent about parameter impacts and pitfalls.

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 well-structured with paragraphs and a bullet-like list of arguments, but it is somewhat verbose. It repeats the argument list that appears in the schema, though since the schema lacks descriptions, this repetition is justified. The usage guidance and warning are valuable, but the text could be tightened without losing essential information.

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 is complete for the tool's complexity. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, parameter semantics, and warnings. It explains when not to use it (mixing vs. mastering) and directs to an alternative (loudness_normalize). Given no output schema, no return value explanation is needed. Nothing critical 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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description text provides clear semantics for each parameter (e.g., 'threshold_db: Level above which compression starts (dB)'). It also explains the default values and gives examples (e.g., 'ratio: Compression ratio (e.g. 2.0 = 2:1)'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'Apply dynamic range compression. Evens out volume differences.' This is specific and distinguishes it from related effects. It also provides usage scenarios (mastering vs. podcast) and warns against misuse, further clarifying its intended role.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'For mastering, use ratio 1.5-2:1...' and 'For podcasts/voice, use ratio 4-8:1...'. It also explicitly contrasts with loudness_normalize: 'Use loudness_normalize() instead for proper LUFS-based loudness control.' This provides clear selection criteria among alternatives.

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