Adjust volume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add useful behavior—'video is untouched'—and explains the multiplier semantics. However, it leaves out details about what happens if output_path is omitted, whether the input is overwritten, or any 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose, provides an example, and states a key nuance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 three documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics. It lacks explicit handling of the optional output_path (e.g., overwrite behavior), but the core functionality is well explained.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning to the 'factor' parameter with concrete examples ('2 = double volume, 0.5 = half'), going beyond the schema's generic 'Volume multiplier (e.g. 1.5, 0.5)'. This justifies a 4.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Make the audio louder or quieter.' It also notes 'video is untouched,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools that manipulate video. This is clear and 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 explains the multiplier usage ('2 = double volume, 0.5 = half'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like remove_audio or replace_audio, nor does it mention exclusions.

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