set_clip_gain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention valid dB ranges, whether clipping can occur, or whether the change is immediate and reversible. The example values (-6.0, 3.0) hint at format but not constraints or side effects.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean parameter list. Every part earns its place, with no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 simple setter with three required parameters and no output schema, this description is minimally viable. It clearly defines the parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and edge-case handling. It does not mention index validity, gain limits, or possible errors, leaving some gaps.

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?

The input schema provides only titles with no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains all three parameters, especially gain with dB examples and units, adding meaning beyond bare schema fields. However, it lacks details like zero-based indexing or what 'clip slot' means.

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 action ('Set the gain of an audio clip') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_track_volume or set_clip_pitch. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the intent is 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?

No usage context or alternative guidance is provided. The description simply states what the tool does without explaining when to use it (e.g., adjusting clip loudness vs track volume) or any prerequisites such as the clip needing to exist.

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