auto_ducking

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the action is automatic and voice-triggered, but does not state whether tracks are modified destructively, how duck_level is applied, whether it affects other tracks, or any side effects. Missing critical behavioral context for an audio-mutating operation.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core behavior. No filler, but it is under-specified for a tool that needs more explanation.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is far too thin. It does not explain what 'duck' means in practice, what duck_level does, whether the operation is reversible, what the expected result is, or which sibling tools it complements. An agent cannot call it correctly with confidence.

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 description does not name or explain any parameter. It only hints that one track is voice and another is music, which loosely maps to voice_track_id and music_track_id, but it never defines duck_level or explains the relationship between parameters. The description fails to compensate for the schema's total lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('duck') and resource ('music volume'), and adds the condition 'when voice is present', which distinguishes it from a plain volume-set tool like set_volume. It doesn't explicitly name the distinction, but the purpose is immediately understandable.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a use case (duck under voice), but it doesn't mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or that set_volume might be a manual alternative. Only implied usage, no exclusions.

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