adjust_volume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the volume mapping (1.0 original, 0.5 half, 2.0 double, 0.0 mute), which adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't mention side effects, whether the original file is overwritten, or what output is produced.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the action, followed by a clean list of volume value mappings. Every line earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns or changes, but it doesn't. It also omits usage context and prerequisites. The volume semantics are well covered, but the overall definition is incomplete for an agent needing to know the full behavior and result of the call.

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 explains the volume parameter clearly through examples and implies input_video is the video whose audio is modified. It doesn't detail the format or path of input_video, but the parameter name and action make it reasonably clear.

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 'Change' and the resource 'video's audio volume', making the tool's purpose obvious. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like fade_audio, but the concept of volume adjustment is distinct enough among the provided tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fade_audio, remove_audio, or replace_audio. The volume scale examples are useful for invocation but do not provide context for when this tool is the right choice.

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