label_silence_regions

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it replaces audio with silence, preserves timeline length, and does not move labels. However, it does not mention reversibility or undo behavior, but given its edit nature, it's reasonably transparent. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the burden and it covers the main effects.

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 concise and well-structured: it leads with the core action, then gives the use-case rationale, and finally the operational context (selection and tracks). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It explains the effect on audio and labels, and clarifies the required preconditions (selected tracks and time range). No critical information 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 no parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description implicitly conveys that the tool uses the current selection and selected tracks as context, which is not a parameter but contextual information. No parameter explanations are needed.

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 verb 'Replace' and the resource 'audio under every label', with the explicit scope of 'keeping the timeline length'. It also clarifies that it acts on 'labeled regions within the current selection on the SELECTED AUDIO TRACKS', which differentiates it from similar tools like delete or cut.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it: 'Use when the material must not get shorter' and gives concrete examples (redacting a name, muting a noise burst) that require preserving sync. It also provides preconditions: 'select the audio tracks and time range first'.

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