mix_bgm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'mix' and 'ducking optional', but does not explain whether it modifies the project, what happens to existing audio, or if it is destructive. This is insufficient for a multi-parameter tool.

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 very concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices essential details for brevity. It front-loads the purpose but omits parameter and behavioral information, making it less useful than a longer but more complete description.

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?

Given 5 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema existing, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or relationships between parameters, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, and the description only implies the 'duck' parameter via 'ducking optional'. No explanation of 'style', 'volume', 'bgm_path', or 'project_id' is given, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and constraints.

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 the tool mixes copyright-safe ambient BGM under vocals, with optional user-provided bgm_path and ducking. The verb 'mix' and resource 'BGM under vocals' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like process_audio which is more general.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., process_audio, add_graphics). It does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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