Trim local audio

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

Goes well beyond annotations: it discloses that a new WAV is written (consistent with destructiveHint=false since input is untouched), that every encoded sample is verified, the default 5 ms fade and how to disable it, priming-sample trimming caveats, and the 1 ms gap rule in cut mode. It also flags the non-obvious requirement of a local browser, which an agent could not infer from schema or 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?

Front-loaded with the core operation and mode distinction, then progressively finer caveats. Every sentence carries content, though the priming-sample and 1 ms-gap details are dense and sit ahead of arguably more important facts (output WAV, local-browser requirement).

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is produced (a new WAV), verification behavior, format support, and the browser dependency. It stops short on output bit-depth semantics, overwrite behavior if output_path exists, and time units, which an agent might still need.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for mode, fade_ms, and ranges (ordering, repeats, cut-mode gap behavior). Gaps remain: the units for range start/end are never stated, and the bits parameter (16/32) is not explained anywhere. Strong but not fully compensatory.

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 specific verb (keep/cut ranges = trim) plus the resource (audio), and even enumerates supported formats (WAV, MP3 Layer III, AAC-LC). It is easy to separate from non-audio siblings, but it never explicitly contrasts with the near-neighbor abox_audio_edit, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 keep-vs-cut semantics are conveyed, along with constraints (times must fit decoded audio, local browser required), but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing to abox_audio_edit or abox_audio_extract. Usage is implied by the operation description rather than framed as when/when-not guidance.

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