audio

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. The bracketed '[17 actions]' does hint that this is a multi-action dispatcher, but the description says nothing about which actions mutate or destroy data (normalize, ducking), which are read-only (levels, beat detection), or whether audio export writes files — critical for a tool whose domain includes destructive edits.

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?

A single front-loaded line with no filler; the capability list is dense and scannable. It is efficient, though the list substitutes for the action enumeration an agent actually needs.

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 17-action dispatcher with an unenumerated free-form 'action' string, an untyped 'args' object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly insufficient — an agent cannot reliably determine a valid action value or argument shape before invoking.

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 0%, and the two parameters ('action' string with no enum, 'args' as a bare untyped object) are entirely undocumented. The description's topic keywords ('pan', 'ducking', 'normalize', 'beat detection', 'export') give a faint hint at the action space but provide no mapping to valid 'action' values and no shape for 'args'.

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 names the resource domain (audio) and enumerates capability areas — levels, pan, ducking, normalize, beat detection, export — which distinguishes it from siblings like color_grade, masks, or vfx3d. However, it never states a verb or the actual operation the tool performs, and the '[17 actions]' marker signals a dispatcher whose action names are not listed, so the agent cannot tell what a call concretely does.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The capability list only weakly implies usage contexts (e.g., 'export' implies a finishing step), but the agent gets no guidance on choosing this over the separate 'effects' or 'output' siblings.

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