add_audio_keyframes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without any details on side effects (e.g., whether existing keyframes are replaced or appended), prerequisites (like valid clipId or audio track), error conditions, or idempotency. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to conveying the purpose succinctly.

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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It explains the core functionality but lacks details on behavior such as how keyframes combine with existing ones or any constraints. Given no annotations, more behavioral context would be expected for full completeness.

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?

Parameter descriptions in the schema already cover the meaning of clipId and keyframes with time/level. The description adds the context of 'audio levels' and 'dynamic volume changes', clarifying that keyframes apply to volume, which is a slight enhancement beyond the schema. However, it does not add syntax or specific usage details beyond what the schema provides.

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 action (adds keyframes), the target (audio levels), and the purpose (dynamic volume changes). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like set_clip_volume (static volume) and add_keyframe (generic keyframe addition), providing a clear verb+resource+scope.

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 implies usage when dynamic volume changes are needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_clip_volume for static volume or add_keyframe for other properties. No exclusions or alternative names are mentioned, leaving it to the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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