audio_convert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the conversion operation, support for local paths or URLs, default output directory, and the constraint that bitrate applies only to lossy formats. It also clarifies the meaning of sample_rate=0 as 'keep'. While it doesn't mention overwrite behavior or error conditions, it covers the key behavioral aspects needed for correct invocation.

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 well-structured with a clear one-line summary followed by an Args list. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance is compact but complete.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return values are already defined elsewhere) and the description covers all parameters, defaults, constraints, and a usage tip, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call the tool correctly. It is a complete specification for this conversion operation.

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 fully compensates by explaining every parameter: source (path/URL), output_format (enumerates options and default), output_path (default location), bitrate (examples and format constraint), sample_rate (meaning of 0 and use case), and mono (effect). This goes far beyond the bare schema definitions and gives agents actionable guidance.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Convert an audio file to another format', and immediately enumerates the optional transformations (bitrate, sample rate, mono). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like audio_trim, audio_waveform, and audio_transcribe, which have very different purposes.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool by defining its core function (format conversion) and providing a practical tip ('16000 mono is ideal for speech-to-text pipelines'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is so unambiguous that an agent can identify the correct tool from the sibling list without further guidance.

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