video_extract_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals meaningful traits: supports both local files and URLs, defaults output to ~/Downloads/openmedia/, defaults format to mp3, and supports section extraction via start/end. Left undisclosed are error behaviors (e.g., handling of unsupported input formats), overwrite policy for existing files, and time format requirements. The disclosure is decent but not comprehensive.

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?

A clean docstring format with a one-line purpose statement followed by a compact 5-parameter Args block. Each line earns its place, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded. Minor inefficiency exists in repeating parameter names already in the schema, but this is standard docstring practice and doesn't bloat the content.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation isn't needed. However, the description omits the start/end time format (critical for correct parameter use), doesn't note supported input video formats, and doesn't differentiate when to choose extraction over audio_convert or audio_trim. For a 5-parameter tool with one required field, these gaps are notable.

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. It enriches every parameter: source is clarified as 'Local file path or video URL,' output_format enumerates all 5 valid values plus the default, output_path explains the default location, and start/end describe their purpose. A real gap is the missing time format for start/end (seconds vs. HH:MM:SS), which hinders correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Extract the audio track from a video into an audio file.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like audio_convert (conversion of existing audio), audio_trim (trimming audio), and video_clip (video editing). An agent can immediately identify the extraction function without ambiguity.

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 parameter descriptions provide implied context — 'Optional start time to extract only a section' suggests partial extraction, and 'Local file path or video URL' tells users what inputs are valid. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like audio_convert or audio_trim, nor any exclusion criteria or alternative routing.

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