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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds that audio is extracted into specified formats, but it does not disclose details like always re-encoding to the target format, how the output is returned, or whether the source is left untouched. The re-encoding behavior appears only in the file parameter schema, not in the description itself.

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 a single, scannable sentence with a useful category tag. It loses a point for redundantly repeating the title 'Extract Audio' inside the description, which is minor but not zero-waste.

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 tool is simple, with only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, and the description names the core operation and formats. However, it does not describe the return value, any output artifact, or how this relates to sibling media tools, leaving some context for the agent to infer.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including the M4A edge case and lossless versus lossy format differences. The description's mention of output formats adds little beyond what the enum already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Extract the audio track from a video file' and lists the exact output formats (MP3, WAV, OGG, FLAC, AAC). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like media_extract_frames, media_trim_audio, and media_merge_audio.

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 use case is implied: pull audio out of a video file into a specified format. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools such as convert_video, media_trim_audio, or media_merge_audio, nor does it give any when-not-to-use guidance.

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