video_duck_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the ducking mechanism (FFmpeg sidechain compressor) and mentions that music dips during speech and recovers in pauses. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but the description is fairly transparent for a non-destructive audio operation.

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 concise: a one-sentence summary followed by structured parameter docs. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool complexity (8 parameters, 2 required, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, mechanism, parameters, and typical use cases. No gaps are evident.

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 0%, but the description includes a detailed inline docstring explaining each parameter with ranges, defaults, and behavior (e.g., 'Base music level before ducking (0-2, default 0.6)'). This adds substantial meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Mix background music under a video's voice with automatic ducking.' It uses specific verbs (mix, duck) and resources (video audio, background music), and distinguishes from sibling audio tools like audio_compose or audio_effects by focusing on ducking.

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 provides clear context for usage, mentioning it's 'the standard treatment for shorts, reels, and podcast clips.' It implies when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives, which would elevate it to a 5.

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