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

The description states the core action but does not disclose what the tool returns, whether the original file is modified, or any important behavioral details. Annotations only supply false hints, so the description carries the full burden and provides only minimal operational information.

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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded. The `[category: media]` tag is compact and adds organizational context without distracting from the tool's purpose.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter and no nested objects, the description and schema together are sufficient to understand the input and intended operation. It lacks explicit output-behavior detail, but the simplicity of the tool means an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing `file` as an input file with supported formats. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'video file,' so it does not improve on what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Remove the audio track from a video file,' which clarifies what 'mute' means. It is clear and distinguishes the action from simple play/analyze operations, though it does not explicitly contrast with related media tools like media_extract_audio or media_trim_video.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as media_extract_audio, media_trim_video, or convert_video. The operation is inferable from the name and description, but no sibling exclusions or context are provided, so an agent must rely on inference.

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