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

The description discloses the core behavioral effect: the audio track is removed, which goes beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. However, it does not clarify whether the input file is modified in place or a new muted video file is produced, which matters for an agent invoking the 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb and object. The category tag is compact and useful, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates the input and the transformation. It could explicitly mention the return value, but the fact that the result is a muted video is strongly implied by the operation.

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 only parameter, 'file', is fully described in the input schema with its accepted formats (MP4, MOV, AVI, MKV), so schema coverage is complete. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond calling it a 'video file,' so the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove the audio track from a video file.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from related siblings like media_extract_audio or media_trim_video by describing a distinct outcome.

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 description implies when to use the tool—when a muted/silent video is needed—but it gives no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention related media tools such as media_extract_audio or media_trim_video.

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