set_volume

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 conveys that this is a mutation ('set') and gives useful calibration of the value range, but says nothing about whether the change is additive to existing clip gain, whether it is undoable, what permissions/selection state are needed, or what the response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the parenthetical examples each add real interpretive value for the numeric argument.

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 2-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves the central 'ref' parameter undefined and omits any account of effect or return. It is under-specified for the complexity of the operation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does well for 'db' (0 unchanged, -6 quieter, -20 background music) but leaves 'ref' completely unexplained – the agent cannot tell whether it is a clip ID, name, or index.

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?

Names a specific verb (set) and resource (clip's volume) plus the unit (dB), which is unambiguous on its own. It stops short of distinguishing this from siblings like normalize_audio or measure_loudness, but an agent can still tell what the tool does.

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 dB examples hint at the intended scale but never say when to use this rather than normalize_audio or measure_loudness, nor any prerequisites (must a timeline/clip be selected first?). The agent must infer the selection context from sibling names alone.

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