apply_audio_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses scope (all dialogue clips, or a subset via refs), which implies non-dialogue clips are untouched, but says nothing about reversibility/undo, in-place modification vs. new clips, or behavior when no style has been saved.

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?

Two sentences, no waste: the action and scope come first and the routing hint second. The parenthetical reference to save_audio_style is compact and load-bearing.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover more of the mutation's edges: what is returned, whether the change is undoable (an undo sibling exists), and the failure mode when no saved style exists. The core action and scope are covered, but these operational gaps remain.

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% for the single 'refs' parameter, so the description must compensate. Saying 'or to the given refs' clarifies that refs selects a subset rather than changing the operation, but it never explains what a ref is or how to obtain one (presumably from get_timeline).

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 (apply), a specific resource (the saved dialogue sound / audio style), and a precise scope (every dialogue clip in the storyline, or the given refs). It also cross-references save_audio_style so the agent knows where the style comes from, making it clearly distinguishable from normalize_audio.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (normalize_audio) and the condition that selects this tool over it (when a style is saved), plus points to save_audio_style for creating the style. It does not state what happens if no style is saved, leaving the negative case implicit.

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