remove_silences

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important side effect: a ripple delete applied to every clip on the timeline, with padding preserved to avoid clipping speech. It does not say whether the edits are undoable or how it behaves when no silence is found, which are meaningful gaps for an unannotated mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by the safety hint. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and every clause carries information.

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 5-parameter, unannotated, destructive timeline operation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the ripple side effect well. It is still incomplete on the tuning parameters and on the return/undo behavior an agent needs before executing a batch edit.

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. It adds genuine meaning for padding (seconds of audio kept either side of a cut) and dry_run (preview mode), but leaves noise_db and min_silence — the two parameters that actually control what counts as silence — with no units, thresholds, or directionality explained.

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 names a specific verb chain (detects silence, ripple-deletes) and an explicit scope: every clip's audio across the whole timeline. It is operationally distinct from the sibling detect_silence because it states the content is deleted and the timeline is rippled, not merely reported.

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?

It gives a concrete workflow directive — run with dry_run=True to preview the cuts before committing — which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. detect_silence for a read-only check) or stating when not to run it (e.g. clips with no audio track).

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