adjust_volume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies audio volume (a mutation) and explains the gain parameter's meaning. However, it does not mention potential side effects on other video properties, reversibility, or any required permissions. This is adequate but not rich.

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 with zero wasted words. The key information (unit and examples) is front-loaded and easy to parse. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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 simple two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks guidance on typical use cases or edge cases (e.g., clamping behavior at min/max). Given the simplicity, a 3 is appropriate; it's adequate but could mention that the gain is applied to the audio track.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (gain in dB, video path). The description adds concrete examples of gain values (+6, -6), which clarifies the semantics slightly beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the verb 'adjust' and the resource 'audio volume', and specifies the unit (decibels) with intuitive examples (+6 = louder, -6 = quieter). It is distinct from sibling tools like replace_audio or extract_audio, which have different purposes.

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 implies when to use it: when you need to adjust volume of an existing video. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling tools. A higher score would require explicit exclusions.

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