audio_mix

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional loudness normalization but does not state whether the tool creates a new output file, overwrites existing files, modifies the input, or what the return/result behavior is. These side effects are ambiguous for an agent.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then lists the key options. It contains no redundant words, though more structured detail would improve its usefulness.

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 has 7 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how the 'music' and 'voice' objects relate to 'input', what formats are expected, or what the output is. An agent would need to inspect schemas and infer defaults to use it correctly.

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 compensate. It hints at 'gain' mapping to volume, 'fades' to fadeIn/fadeOut, and 'normalization' to normalize/targetLufs, but it does not explain key parameters like input, output, voiceVolume, start times, or source paths. The mapping is partial and leaves significant ambiguity.

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 verb 'mix' and the resource ('music under source audio or a separate voice track'), and mentions key options (gain, fades, loudness normalization). It is specific enough to convey the core operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 'overlay' or 'concat'.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'overlay', 'trim', or 'concat'. The description implies a use case (adding background music or a voice track) but does not state conditions, exclusions, or when another sibling would be more appropriate.

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