label_delete_regions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that audio under labels is deleted, that gaps are closed, that labeled regions collapse rather than survive unchanged, and that the user should re-read label_list to see the result. This goes beyond a simple 'delete' and exposes the side effects and follow-up action.

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 efficiently structured and front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by use-case, alternative, prerequisites, and consequences. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers what it does, when to use it, the alternative, the required setup, the behavioral impact, and a follow-up action. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and it adds no irrelevant parameter info. It correctly focuses on the context of use, which is the only relevant semantic here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete the audio under every label, closing the gaps') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling label_delete_audio_at ('Use label_delete_audio_at for a single label'). The purpose is unambiguous and clearly separated from related label operations.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Label every unwanted stretch — bad takes, dead air, noise bursts — then remove them all in one pass'), names the alternative for single-label cases, and states the prerequisites ('select the audio tracks and time range first'). Also notes the behavioral consequence of the timeline closing up and advises re-reading label_list afterwards.

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