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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about how each method detects gaps (Silero VAD, no transcript needed, audio level threshold), but says nothing about whether the cut is undoable, how clips are rippled, or what happens to locked tracks beyond the schema note.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then method semantics, then the default rule. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the method dimension well but leaves gaps on thresholdDb, the ripple/undo behavior, and how it differs from detect_silence. Adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description compensates by explaining minGap's role and the full semantics of the method enum including its default resolution. It does not clarify thresholdDb units or how keep interacts with the cut, leaving those to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and effect ('Cut pauses longer than minGap') and enumerates the three detection methods, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling detect_silence, which is the closest alternative, so it falls short of 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?

Gives clear selection guidance among the three methods and states the default fallback ('transcript if there is one, otherwise speech'), which is exactly the kind of when-to-use context an agent needs. It offers no guidance on when to use this versus detect_silence or close_gaps, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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