setup_ducking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It mentions building a curve and computing keyframes, which implies modifying the clip's audio keyframes, but it does not explicitly state that the tool will add or modify keyframes on the clip, nor does it mention any potential destructive actions, permissions, or other behavioral impacts.

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 two concise sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, behavior, and key timing convention. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

The description explains the core functionality and input interpretation well, but it does not mention what the tool returns or any error conditions (e.g., what happens if duckingWindows are invalid). Since there is no output schema, a brief note on return behavior would improve completeness, but the current description covers essential usage context.

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?

All 6 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds crucial context such as times being clip-source-time absolute and the meaning of empty duckingWindows. The parameter meanings are clear and unambiguous.

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 what the tool does: it builds a ducking curve by wrapping add_audio_keyframes, specifying the inputs (base level + ducking windows) and the output (keyframes). It also distinguishes itself from the manual '8 keyframes per video' pattern, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 indicates it is a high-level wrapper for add_audio_keyframes and replaces a manual pattern, giving some context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of directly using add_audio_keyframes or other alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions.

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