compressor

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

The description goes beyond the bare tool name by explaining each parameter's role, e.g., 'threshold_db: Level above which compression starts' and 'makeup_gain_db: Makeup gain applied after compression.' However, with no annotations at all, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive/in-place, whether undo is available, or what happens if no audio is selected.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clean, well-organized parameter list with defaults. Every line earns its place with no redundant or promotional language.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and all parameters, which is adequate for calling it. But because there is no output schema and no annotations, it should also clarify the operational side effects — whether the selected audio is replaced, whether processing is applied non-destructively, and what a successful invocation returns.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It successfully provides a plain-language definition, unit, and default for all six parameters, adding meaningful context the schema's bare numeric types and titles do not convey.

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 a specific operation — 'Apply dynamic range compression' — and identifies the target as 'the selected audio.' It is easily distinguishable as an audio effect, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like limiter, normalize, or loudness_normalize.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as limiter, normalize, or loudness_normalize. There is also no mention of prerequisites like having audio selected or whether it should be used on a clip versus a track.

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