Setup Ducking

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it states that windows are relative to the clip start and that overlapping or out-of-range windows are rejected before any keyframe write. Since annotations are all false and provide no safety profile, this validation-before-write disclosure is valuable, though it does not discuss overwriting existing keyframes.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first sentence front-loads the action and resource, and the second states the key timing and validation constraints. 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 full schema parameter coverage and an output schema present, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: single-clip scope, relative window times, and pre-write validation. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though a note about interaction with existing keyframes would round it out.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing that window times are relative to clip start, which the schema already states. Baseline 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, 'Build,' and names the precise resource: a 'verified Volume > Level keyframe curve for one audio clip.' The one-clip ducking scope distinguishes it clearly from sibling volume/keyframe tools like set_clip_volume or add_audio_keyframes, even though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 clearly communicates the intended use case: setting up ducking automation on a single audio clip, with windows relative to that clip's start. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the scope and validation constraints give an agent enough context to select it appropriately.

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