extract_audio

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does supply useful behavior: it fails clearly when the input has no audio, it states the default output path and naming convention, and it notes that 'copy' is fast and lossless while bitrate overrides quality. It is silent, however, on the risk-relevant flags present in the schema — overwrite (a destructive write), dry_run (preview), and timeout — so the agent cannot infer side effects from the text.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then structured as labeled facts (format, bitrate, failure mode, default output). Dense but every line is informative; the format enumeration earns its length precisely because the schema has no enum for it. Minor redundancy in the parenthetical asides.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for an eight-parameter file-writing tool with zero annotation coverage, the omission of overwrite and dry_run semantics is a real gap an agent needs before invoking it safely.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for eight parameters. It does well on format (full enumerated value list plus default) and bitrate ('192k' example), and explains the default output naming, but says nothing about input, quality (default 'medium'), overwrite, dry_run, or timeout_s — leaving five parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 — 'Pull the audio track out of a video (or re-encode an audio file)' — which is immediately actionable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'convert', which plausibly overlaps with the re-encode case, so the agent gets no explicit routing signal.

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?

Usage is only implied: the parenthetical hints that this doubles as an audio re-encoder, and 'copy' is framed as the fast/lossless option. There is no explicit 'use this when… / use convert instead when…' guidance, and no mention of when to prefer extract_frames or compress.

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