normalize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It explains the destructive mutation potential ('blowing out the audio'), mathematical relationship between current and target levels, and preprocessing side effects (DC offset removal). No contradictions with annotations exist.

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?

Despite length, every sentence earns its place. Front-loaded warning addresses critical safety concerns first. Structured with clear sections (WARNING, Guidelines, Args) for scannability. No redundant fluff.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and destructive behavior, the description is remarkably complete. It covers operational prerequisites, risk mitigation workflows, parameter semantics, and distinguishes appropriate use cases without needing an output schema.

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%, requiring the description to fully compensate. The 'Args:' section provides complete semantic coverage: 'peak_level_db' includes valid range (-60 to 0) and default, 'remove_dc' explains the audio processing concept, and 'stereo_independent' explains the functional purpose (fixing unbalanced recordings).

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 opens with a specific verb-resource statement: 'Normalize the selected audio to a target peak level.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tool 'loudness_normalize' (which uses LUFS/LKFS) and 'effect_amplify' (manual gain adjustment), establishing precise scope.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites ('ALWAYS check current audio levels first (use project_get_info)'), danger conditions ('If audio peaks at -30 dB... it will BOOST by 29 dB'), and contextual selection guidance (bullet points differentiating -3 dB vs -6 dB vs -1 dB use cases).

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