set_clips_volume

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

The description clearly shows that the tool mutates clip volume, which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false). It adds some value by clarifying the batch scope, but does not disclose whether existing volume animation/keyframes are overwritten, what happens when clip_indices is empty, or if errors occur for out-of-range indices. With no rich annotations, it leaves these behavioral details undisclosed.

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 short sentences tightly packed with relevant information: the action, the object, the alternative scoping, and a performance hint. No filler or redundancy. The key usage context is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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?

The simple mutation tool is well specified with required vs optional parameters and the batch rationale. There is no output schema, but for a 'set' operation that likely returns nothing, the description plus schema is sufficient. It only lacks explicit edge-case details, but those are minor for this kind of tool.

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 parameters are already well documented: volume_db range (0 = unity, max +15), track_index is 0-based, and clip_indices is optional. The description only adds the batch/round-trip intent, which is nice but not essential, so a baseline score 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 clearly states a specific action: 'Set the volume (in dB) on every audio clip of a track, or on a list of clip indices.' This immediately differentiates the tool from single-clip setters like set_clip_volume and positions it as a batch operation with precise scope (track-wide or selected indices).

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 pragmatically explains when to use this tool: 'One round trip instead of one call per clip - essential for sequences with dozens of clips.' It provides a performance-based reason to choose the batch tool over repeated single-clip calls, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or specify when not to use it.

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