Adjust 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 discloses a key behavioral trait: video is untouched, and explains that audio is scaled by a factor. However, it does not mention output behavior, supported formats, or whether the operation is destructive to the source, though the output_path parameter somewhat implies writing a new file.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a practical example. Every phrase earns its place, and it is efficiently structured.

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 tool with full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the operation, the multiplier semantics, and the crucial caveat about video remaining untouched. It lacks explicit mention of input/output path handling, but the schema fills that gap.

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 schema already documents all parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning to the 'factor' parameter by explaining that 2 means double and 0.5 means half, which goes beyond the schema's generic examples. This is useful clarification that improves parameter understanding.

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's function: making audio louder or quieter. The multiplier examples and the note that video remains untouched provide specific scope that distinguishes it from video-editing siblings. This is specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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 explains how to use the multiplier but does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like normalize_audio. There is no explicit guidance on exclusions or alternative tools for similar audio adjustments. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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