Convert format

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, meaning this is a mutating but not destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: default codec selection per container and the audio_only extraction path. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by actionable default behavior. There is zero redundancy and every phrase earns its place, making it an efficient and well-structured explanation.

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 numerous encode options and an output schema, the description covers the key decision of default codecs and the audio_only shortcut. The schema handles parameter-level details, and the output schema likely covers return values. Minor gaps like error behavior and output path handling are covered by structured data or are not essential.

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 100%, with all parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds a small amount of linkage by referencing how 'encode' overrides defaults and 'audio_only' extracts audio, but this largely paraphrases schema descriptions. Baseline 3 applies given the schema already carries the heavy lifting.

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 'Transcode a file to a different container or codec,' a specific verb and resource that clearly states the operation. The added details about per-container defaults and audio_only further clarify the tool's scope and distinguish it from siblings like trim or concat.

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 implies usage for format conversion and explains how to override defaults, but it never explicitly contrasts with sibling tools or states when not to use it. There is no 'use X instead' guidance, so the agent must rely on tool names for differentiation.

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