loudness_normalize

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It openly warns that the tool can DESTROY audio, boosts or reduces to hit the target LUFS, can apply 20-30 dB of gain causing clipping and distortion, and requires safe peak ranges before use.

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 long but appropriately structured and front-loaded: danger warning first, then prohibited use cases, then the only acceptable use, then targets and args. Every section provides operational value, and the critical warnings appear before any parameter detail.

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 destructive audio mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the risk profile, prerequisites, alternatives, valid target values, and parameter behavior. An agent has enough information to decide when to call it and how to invoke it safely.

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 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section gives each parameter meaningful semantics: lufs_level with a valid range and default, stereo_independent explaining L/R channel treatment, and dual_mono explaining correct LUFS measurement. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 states a specific operation: normalize audio to a target perceived loudness in LUFS. It explicitly distinguishes this from the sibling normalize tool by calling normalize the gentle alternative for quiet audio, and it restricts use to explicit LUFS normalization requests.

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 when-not-to-use guidance: not after a pipeline, not on raw audio, not without auto_analyze_audio, and not when peaks are below -20 dB. It also names the only acceptable condition and points to normalize as the alternative for quiet audio.

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