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

Despite annotations being sparse (all false), the description fully discloses behavior: trimming mechanics (min_silence_s, padding_s), word-edge snapping to avoid clipping, refusal logic (>=50% audible gaps and 25%+ removal), and the requirement to set allow_nonquiet only with user permission. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. Key scoping and single-call positioning are front-loaded, defaults are given inline, and the safety guardrails are stated without redundancy. Dense but efficiently organized.

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 4 params, no output schema, and important failure/refusal behavior, the description covers everything an agent needs: scope, defaults, edge-case refusal, and the recommended verification step. Nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is only 25% (only project_id described), but the description compensates by explaining min_silence_s (default 0.5s), padding_s (default 0.12s), and allow_nonquiet (permission gating). It adds semantic meaning beyond the raw schema, which is exactly what's needed at low coverage.

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?

Clearly states it cuts silences in a project with a specific verb+resource. Explicitly distinguishes itself from cut_range ('Do this in one call instead of many cut_range calls') and identifies itself as 'THE tool' for silence trimming, making it unmistakable among siblings.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: the intended use case ('cut the silences', 'tighten this up'), the alternative (cut_range) to avoid, and the follow-up verification tool (get_kept_transcript). Also specifies the condition for allow_nonquiet and the refusal conditions. No guesswork needed.

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