edit_silence

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 conveys the core in-place mutation (audio is overwritten with silence) but omits important behavioral traits: whether the action is reversible, whether it affects all tracks or only selected tracks, what happens to the selection afterward, and whether it preserves duration. For a destructive edit operation, this is a significant gap.

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 single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler or repetition. It is efficiently worded, though it leans toward under-specification rather than rich conciseness; still, the structure itself is exemplary for what it covers.

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?

Despite having no parameters, the tool operates in a crowded namespace of edit tools and performs a destructive mutation with no annotations or output schema to supplement the description. The one-line description does not resolve key ambiguities such as track scope, reversibility, or how it differs from edit_delete and truncate_silence, leaving the agent with incomplete information to invoke it appropriately.

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?

The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the 0-params baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter information for the description to add. The description appropriately says nothing about arguments because none exist.

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 action ('replace') and resource ('the selected audio'), with the 'with silence' qualifier making the result unmistakable and distinguishing it from deletion or trimming. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like edit_delete or truncate_silence, so it falls short of a perfect score, but the core purpose is clearly conveyed.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar edit tools in the sibling list (edit_delete, edit_trim, edit_cut, truncate_silence, label_silence_regions). No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving selection entirely to the agent's inference.

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