Set clip gain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses linear-vs-dB gain interpretation, channel targeting, and the exact-one-clip addressing constraint, but it does not state permissions, undoability, or failure behavior when zero or multiple clips match.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and then the addressing constraint. Every sentence earns its place without repetition 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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers invocation-critical addressing and gain semantics. However, it omits error behavior, permission requirements, and side-effect details, leaving it adequate but not fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics beyond individual schema fields: the at/region address must resolve to exactly one clip, and it reinforces the all-channels-versus-one-channel scope. It still does not detail unit, track, or project semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Sets the addressed clip's gain') and includes the exact addressing scope ('at or region must match exactly one clip'). An agent can distinguish this from sibling operations such as clip_fades or move_clip without opening the schema.

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 supplies a prerequisite ('address must match exactly one clip') and describes channel scope, but it does not name alternatives or explain when a gain change is preferable to other clip operations. Usage is implied from the verb and addressing rule rather than explicitly guided.

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