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

With no annotations, the description must disclose operational behavior. It mentions processing in the browser and credit consumption, but these are pricing/workspace details, not behavioral traits like output format, reversibility, or asynchronous processing. It does not state what happens to the video beyond 'keeping video only'.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. However, the remaining four sentences are about credit plans and workspace availability, which is tangential and makes the description verbose for what is a simple mute operation.

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, the description conveys the core purpose and some constraints (credit cost, workspace). It lacks information about input handling (e.g., how the video is provided) and output format, though 'keeping video only' implies the output. Overall, adequate but with gaps.

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, so the empty schema fully covers parameter information. The description does not introduce any conflicting or additional parameter semantics. Baseline 4 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 opens with 'Remove Audio from Video — Remove the audio track from a video, keeping video only,' which clearly specifies the action (remove) and resource (audio track from video). This is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from siblings like vocal remover or silence remover, even though alternatives aren't explicitly named.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mio_ai_silence_remover or mio_video_add_audio. It focuses on credit costs and workspace restrictions, which is not usage context or exclusion criteria.

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