normalize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the operation semantics (peak adjustment, DC offset removal, per-channel normalization) and gives the dB range, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the edit is destructive/in-place, whether it is reversible via undo, or how it interacts with the current selection beyond 'selected audio.'

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 one purpose sentence followed by a compact, uniformly formatted args block. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every line earns its place with no verbose filler. The structure is easy to scan and parse.

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 tool with 3 optional parameters and no nested objects or output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: what it does, what each parameter means, valid ranges, and defaults. The main gaps are the absence of sibling differentiation and destructive-nature disclosure, both of which are already penalized in other dimensions.

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 must fully compensate, and it does. Each parameter gets a meaningful semantic explanation beyond its bare schema type: peak_level_db gets a range and default, remove_dc gets its behavioral purpose, and stereo_independent gets its effect on channel processing. The defaults are also restated inline for convenience.

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 states a clear verb+resource+goal: 'Normalize the selected audio to a target peak level.' The phrase 'target peak level' gives the operation a specific target, and this mildly distinguishes it from loudness_normalize. However, it never explicitly names or differentiates the tool from its close siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 given on when to choose this tool over alternatives. With 130+ siblings including loudness_normalize, effect_amplify, and effect_remove_dc_offset, the description provides no exclusions or conditions that would help an agent route to this tool correctly. Usage context is entirely absent.

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