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

Annotations only declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds the crucial consequence the annotations cannot convey: the audio is relocated onto its own audio-track clip and the source video clip is left silent. It does not say whether a new audio track is created when none exists or what happens to a clip without 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?

Two short sentences, operation stated first, consequence second, with the reason folded into a parenthetical. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 two-parameter, no-output tool, the description covers what the tool does and its visible side effect. Remaining gaps (track creation, behavior on silent clips, where the new clip is placed) are modest but real for a mutation tool.

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?

The schema documents projectId (with its default) but leaves clipId bare; the description compensates partially by implying clipId is the video clip whose sound is extracted. At 50% schema coverage that is helpful but not complete, since linking clipId to the video clip is only inferable.

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 names a specific verb (move/detach) and resource (a video clip's sound) and states the end state ('The video clip goes silent'), so the operation is unmistakable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near-neighbors like split_clip or duplicate_clip, which keeps it from a 5.

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 parenthetical '(to trim or move it separately)' implies the motivating scenario, which is genuine usage context, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for cases where the agent should split or duplicate instead. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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