set_clip_gain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the gain unit in dB and examples for negative/positive values, but does not state side effects, whether changes are reversible, what happens if indices are invalid, or any impact on playback. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 concise and well-structured: a single action sentence followed by a clean parameter list. Every line adds value, and the format makes it easy to scan. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings. However, it lacks usage context, error behavior, and any reference to the corresponding getter tool. It is minimally viable but leaves several operational 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 description manually lists all three parameters with explanatory text, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. It clarifies 'gain' with dB examples but lacks crucial details like zero-based versus one-based indexing and how to find the correct indices. The explanations are serviceable but minimal.

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.' This specific verb+resource construction distinguishes it from sibling tools, particularly get_clip_gain which reads the gain. The phrasing is unambiguous and immediately identifies the tool's purpose.

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 purpose implies the tool is used to adjust clip gain, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (such as get_clip_gain to read the current gain). It also omits prerequisites like how to obtain track/clip indices, leaving usage context only implied.

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