Extract local audio

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, which is minimal. The description adds substantial beyond-schema behavior: accepted containers (MP4/M4A/MOV audio tracks, AAC ADTS), that picture payloads are ignored and video is never decoded, that M4A copy requires no browser while WAV uses the local browser for bounded packet decoding, that there is no runtime encoder or dependency download, and that bits/channels controls are refused for M4A.

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-loads the core action and format split in the first two sentences before adding environment constraints. It is dense with jargon ('admitted', 'bounded ordinary') and slightly over-packed, but almost every clause carries operational information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema and five parameters, so the description has to do real work; it covers accepted inputs, mode selection, and dependency/runtime behavior well. Remaining gaps are the semantics of the bits parameter and what happens if output_path already exists, which matter for a non-idempotent write tool.

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 only 40%, so the description carries extra burden. It explains the format choice and the channels/bits refusal rule for M4A, which helps, but never explains what 'bits' 16 vs 32 means or how it interacts with format, and says nothing about output_path overwrite semantics beyond the schema's path text.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Extract admitted MP3 or AAC-LC audio into a new WAV ... or copy AAC-LC packets exactly into a new audio-only M4A') with the two output variants enumerated. It is clearly distinct from sibling audio tools like abox_audio_edit and abox_audio_trim, which imply editing rather than demux/extract.

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?

Gives a concrete decision rule between the two modes: WAV for transcoding/mono mixing, M4A copy for lossless packet copy that needs no browser and refuses bits/channels. It does not explicitly point to sibling alternatives (e.g. abox_audio_edit, abox_audio_trim) when the user actually wants modification rather than extraction, so it stops short of naming alternatives.

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