Apply 3D spatial audio positioning to media by assigning sounds to specified coordinates, enabling directional playback for immersive audio.
Apply 3D spatial audio positioning.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| method | No | hrtf | |
| overwrite | No | Explicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected. | |
| positions | Yes | ||
| input_path | Yes | ||
| output_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.4Input schema / properties / overwriteAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Explicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected.",
+ "title": "Overwrite",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v1.16.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev1.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says only that spatial audio positioning is applied and does not explain how input audio is handled, what method choices imply, or what happens to existing media beyond the schema's overwrite field.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It is concise, though its brevity is also the source of its missing 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?
The tool has five parameters, including a required nested positions array, and no annotations. Although an output schema exists, the description is far too thin to let an agent invoke this complex spatial-audio operation confidently.
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 only 20%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The critical required 'positions' array of objects and the 'method' parameter are left completely unexplained by both the description and the 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 clear verb and resource: apply 3D spatial audio positioning. It distinguishes the operation semantically from audio mixing/normalization siblings, though it does not explicitly name when to use it instead of those alternatives.
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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling audio tools are alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.