set_audio_level

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that 'Any existing volume keyframes on the clip are cleared first,' which is a significant non-obvious behavior. It also mentions the 0 dB ceiling. However, it does not disclose permissions, reversibility, or the return format for the 'read it back' promise.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: a clear statement of purpose, practical dB guidance, and an important keyframe warning. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no fluff or repetition.

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's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It covers the action, the parameter semantics, and the critical side effect of clearing keyframes. It does not need to explain return values since no output schema is present, and the 'read it back' hint is sufficient.

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%, but the description adds beyond the schema by explaining dB semantics: '0 dB is unity and the practical ceiling' and typical values for dialogue and music. This gives meaning to the 'db' parameter that the schema's own description ('0 = unity gain') does not fully convey.

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 opens with 'Set a clip's audio level in decibels and read it back,' which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on audio level, and no other sibling tool covers this exact operation.

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 practical guidance on typical dB values (dialogue near -14 dB, music bed around -26 dB), which helps the agent understand when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling list contains no other audio-level tool, making the use case clear.

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