ass_karaoke_scale

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: duration is clamped so it is 'never below min_cs,' scale_times keeps the Start time and scales span about it, and rounding/clamping is surfaced via duration_sum_cs/discrepancy_cs/message and 'never stretched.' What it omits is that this mutates the document in place and whether the change is undoable, which matters for a write operation.

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?

Front-loads the core operation in the first clause and uses the rest for behavioral detail and a cross-reference. Dense but earns most of its words; the func: cross-reference to ass_karaoke_shift is slightly indirect but informative.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partially addresses returns by naming duration_sum_cs/discrepancy_cs/message and pointing at ass_karaoke_shift's shape. However, it leaves selection/doc_id semantics unexplained and does not state that this is an in-place mutation, leaving gaps for a 5-parameter write tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains factor, min_cs (floor), and scale_times (also scale the line span, keep Start), but says nothing about selection or doc_id — two of five parameters remain fully undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Multiply every karaoke duration by factor.' It also differentiates itself from the close sibling ass_karaoke_shift by describing itself as the same operation 'with factor instead of shift_ms,' so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas. It stops short of 5 only because it never states the broader intent (e.g. retiming karaoke to fit a target duration).

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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself (scale karaoke durations when you want multiplicative adjustment). The explicit contrast with ass_karaoke_shift helps, but there is no statement of when to pick this over ass_karaoke_retime, ass_karaoke_set_timings, or ass_scale_times, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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