normalize_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the processing engine (FFmpeg loudnorm), but says nothing about whether output is written to a new file or in place, what the 'overwrite' parameter actually controls, whether source files can be destroyed, or what happens on unsupported inputs. These are critical for a file-mutating tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is tight, though its brevity is part of why behavioral and parameter detail is missing rather than a model of completeness.

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 file-writing tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and fully undocumented parameters, the description should say where the normalized file lands and how overwrite/format behave. As written, an agent knows what the tool conceptually does but not enough to invoke it confidently.

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% across four parameters, and the description compensates almost not at all. 'local audio' weakly implies input_path is a filesystem path, but filename, format (enum: wav/ogg/mp3/flac), and overwrite are left entirely to the bare schema, with no explanation of how they interact or what defaults mean in practice.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Normalize local audio loudness') plus the underlying implementation (FFmpeg loudnorm filter), which clearly separates it from file-manipulation siblings such as convert_audio, trim_audio, or merge_audio. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as non-alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 word 'local' hints that this operates on files on disk rather than cloud assets, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to the many adjacent audio tools (convert_audio, isolate_voice, extract_music_stems). An agent must infer when loudness normalization is the right choice.

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