audio.loudnorm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add one useful trait — 'two-pass', implying two ffmpeg runs and longer runtime — but says nothing about overwrite behavior on the output path, supported formats/container constraints, failure modes, or what is returned. For a tool that writes a file, that is a significant gap.

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?

A single tight sentence with the operation and default target front-loaded, no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves behavioral gaps that a second short clause could have closed.

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?

Four parameters with two required, no annotations, and no output schema: the description should therefore explain what happens to the output file and what the caller gets back, but it does neither. For a mutating media-processing tool it is under-specified.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the -14 LUFS and -1.5 dBTP defaults. The description repeats the targetLufs default rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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: 'two-pass loudness normalization of a media file' with a concrete target ('integrated loudness, default -14 LUFS') and names the underlying mechanism ('ffmpeg loudnorm'). It is not differentiated from siblings like audio.measure or audio.mix, which an agent could plausibly confuse with normalization.

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?

There is no sentence telling the agent when to pick this over audio.measure (measure loudness) or audio.mix, nor any prerequisite or exclusion (e.g. 'run after audio.mix', 'do not use on already-normalized files'). Usage is only inferable from the purpose statement itself.

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