adjust_audio_levels

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

Annotations already establish this is a mutation (readOnlyHint: false) that is non-destructive (destructiveHint: false). On top of that, the description discloses that Amplify automation is untouched, adding behavioral clarity about side-effect scope beyond the structured fields. Could go slightly deeper (e.g., reversibility or sequence-state requirements) but is appropriately transparent for a simple setter.

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, 21 words, front-loaded with the primary action and ending with a high-value clarification. Every word earns its place with zero fluff or repetition.

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 2-parameter setter with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations present, the description is adequately complete. It specifies the property, unit, the fact that it's a non-destructive adjustment, and the boundary around Amplify automation — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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% — both node_id and level_db are documented clearly, including the dB scale semantics (0 = unity, negative = quieter, positive = louder). The description adds no parameter-level value, but the schema already carries the load, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Adjust a clip's Volume > Level') with the unit (dB) stated, and the second sentence disambiguates from Essential Sound Amplify automation. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like set_clip_volume and set_clips_volume by pinpointing the exact property and sub-system being modified.

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 gives a clear 'when not' boundary: it does not read or change Essential Sound Amplify automation, which is critical context given the many audio-related siblings. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, but the exclusion is a useful, specific side-effect boundary that implies scope.

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