remove_media_silence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It fully discloses the behavior: detects silence, cuts it out with ripple, splits clips, removes silent middles, shifts subsequent clips, and writes a non-destructive copy. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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 a single paragraph but packs essential information: action, method (ffmpeg, ripple), non-destructive nature, preview recommendation. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains concise and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description explains the outcome (writes a _silence_removed copy) and the high-level process. It does not detail return values but is otherwise complete for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'detect REAL silence' and 'CUT' but does not elaborate on individual parameters like padding, noise_db, or min_silence.

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 clearly states the tool detects real silence in source audio (ffmpeg) and cuts it out with ripple, splitting clips and removing silent middles. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'detect_media_silence' by mentioning the preview step and the non-destructive copy.

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 explicitly recommends previewing with 'detect_media_silence first', providing a clear usage hint. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools and the preview suggestion sufficiently guides the agent.

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