Setup Ducking

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

Annotations already disclose the write/idempotency profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: windows are validated for overlap and range and 'rejected before any keyframe write', and times are clip-relative. It does not describe atomicity or partial-failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with zero padding; the primary action is front-loaded and the validation constraint follows immediately. Every clause 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the core action plus its validation rule. For a 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage this is nearly sufficient, though it could note scope (single clip only) and the meaning of base_db versus ducked_db more explicitly.

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's notes that times are clip-relative and that windows are rejected for overlap largely restate what the schema already documents (e.g., 'Window start, relative to clip start'), adding little semantic value beyond the structured fields.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Build a verified Volume > Level keyframe curve for one audio clip', which is far more concrete than a tautology. It implicitly separates itself from generic keyframe siblings like add_keyframe by framing the task around ducking windows, but it never names an alternative, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for creating ducking curves on a clip. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-something-else, and no mention of alternatives such as add_audio_keyframes or add_keyframe, so the agent must infer the choice.

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