audio_ducking

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it lowers/lifts music based on voice, handles video input, and describes error recovery via task_id. It also mentions cost implications, adding transparency.

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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, cost warning, args, returns). It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, earning a high score for clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no required, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: input formats, constraints, output, and error handling. It is complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains each parameter (path vs URL, file types, constraints) and the mutual exclusivity rules, compensating fully for the schema gap.

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 tool's purpose: 'Duck a music bed under a voice track' and explains the process. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., text_to_music, text_to_sfx) by focusing specifically on audio ducking.

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 includes a cost warning and states 'Only use when explicitly requested by the user.' It also specifies input constraints (exactly one of voice_path/voice_url, etc.), providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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