truncate_silence

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

The description discloses the core behavior — truncating or compressing silence in the selected audio — and notes that compress_percent only applies to the Compress action. However, with no annotations, a destructive audio edit should more clearly warn that the selected audio is modified, whether the change is undoable, and what happens if no audio selection exists.

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 first sentence states purpose and use case, and the parameter list is compact, front-loaded, and free of filler. Repeating defaults from the schema is minor because the Args block is the only per-parameter documentation.

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?

All five parameters and both actions are documented, and the target is identified as the selected audio. Given there is no output schema or annotations, a note on return value or undoability would strengthen it, but the information provided is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the Args block fully compensates. It defines every parameter with units, defaults, and action-specific constraints, so an agent can construct valid arguments without any other documentation.

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 operation — truncate or compress silence in the selected audio — and adds the clarifying use case of removing dead air. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like edit_silence or edit_trim, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives a clear usage context: removing dead air, and explains the two operating modes via the action parameter. It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it misses the top score, but the intended use case is explicit.

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