Reset held peak values on all tracks and the master to get clean gain staging readings before a fresh playback pass.
Clear the peak hold indicators on all tracks (including master).
Resets the held peak values that accumulate during playback. Use before a fresh playback pass when you want clean readings for gain staging.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond that by explaining that it 'Resets the held peak values that accumulate during playback,' which helps the agent understand the effect. This is valuable but not extensive; a brief mention of the lack of side effects or confirmation of no audio impact would be richer.
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 exceptionally concise—two short sentences. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides necessary context without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations covering safety, the description fully covers what the tool does, why, and when to use it. There is no missing behavioral or usage information that an agent would need to correctly invoke it.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it doesn't attempt to invent any. It correctly stays silent on 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 states a clear verb ('Clear'), specific resource ('peak hold indicators'), and scope ('all tracks including master'), making it unambiguous and distinct from any sibling. The second sentence clarifies the underlying purpose, reinforcing what exactly is being reset.
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 includes explicit guidance: 'Use before a fresh playback pass when you want clean readings for gain staging.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke it. No alternatives or exclusions are needed because there are no competing tools for this action, but the context provided is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.