Audio Deduplicate

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds real value on top: an environment dependency (optional audio extra + local FFmpeg) and a semantic limitation ('Similarity does not establish equal speech, speaker identity or permission to delete evidence'). It does not clarify the readOnlyHint=false behavior (what, if anything, is written), leaving a minor 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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the dependency and caveat. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be described, parameters are fully covered by the schema, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description completes the picture with the environment prerequisite and the key semantic caveat, so an agent has what it needs to call it 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 100% and the nested request, segments, threshold and SHA-256 fields are all documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Compare local audio candidates') and is clearly distinct from the sibling video_deduplicate_frames. However, 'candidates' and 'retaining silence, errors and uncertainty' are somewhat abstract, leaving the exact operation slightly fuzzy, and no sibling is named explicitly.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires the optional audio extra and local FFmpeg') and a scope caveat, which implicitly signals when it applies. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing versus alternatives such as video_deduplicate_frames or audio_dsp_analyze.

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