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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states a key trait: for videos, it keeps the video and cleans only the audio, which is a non-obvious behavior. It also mentions the availability of three intensity levels. It does not cover limitations like file size, format support, or whether the process is destructive, but for a zero-parameter tool the provided details are useful.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action ('ホワイトノイズ・環境音を3段階強度で除去'). The additional clause about video processing and the browser-based note add context without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main purpose, intensity levels, and the video-specific behavior. It does not explain the output format, download behavior, or limitations, but given the tool's simplicity, these are less critical. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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 tool has zero parameters (empty input schema), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and it doesn't. It adds context about the tool's behavior (audio-only cleaning for videos) which indirectly helps understand how the tool uses user input, but there is no schema to compensate for.

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 specifies the exact function: removes white noise and ambient sounds with 3 intensity levels. It also clarifies that for videos, it preserves the image and cleans only the audio, which clearly distinguishes it from video-editing siblings like yt-silence-cut or yt-reframe-9-16. The verb '除去' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 usage for cleaning audio/video with unwanted noise but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or references to sibling tools (e.g., yt-lufs for loudness, yt-silence-cut for silence removal) are provided. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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