audio_mix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'linear gains and offsets' which hints at how it processes audio, but it does not disclose whether this is a destructive write operation, whether it overwrites existing files, or how the output is delivered (file path vs. in-memory). It also does not mention any side effects or required permissions.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds two key behavioral modifiers. Every word earns its place, making it maximally concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of a track-mixing tool (nested array, multiple parameters, potential output handling), the description is insufficient. There is no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage. The description does not explain the semantics of each parameter, the relationship between tracks and duration, or any constraints like maximum track count. An agent would have to guess or infer critical details.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It mentions 'linear gains' (likely volume) and 'offsets in seconds' (likely start), but it does not elaborate on the 'tracks' structure or the 'duration' parameter, nor does it clarify 'trim_start'. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand how to correctly specify inputs.

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 ('Mix'), the resource ('audio or video files'), and the output format ('into a WAV'). It also specifies the key operations ('linear gains and offsets in seconds'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like audio_add_track and audio_extract that serve different purposes.

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 this tool is used for mixing multiple tracks into a single WAV, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like comp_set_audio_mix or provide any exclusions. There is no guidance on prerequisites or conditions that would make this tool the right choice over others.

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