video_add_generated_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool generates and adds audio but does not disclose side effects such as whether existing audio tracks are overwritten or mixed, any permission requirements, or performance implications. The description is too minimal for behavioral transparency.

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 (around 8 lines) and front-loads the purpose. It uses a clear list for parameters. It avoids extra fluff but could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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 complexity (nested audio_config with additionalProperties, 3 required params, no annotations), the description lacks detail on audio_config structure and behavioral context. It does not explain return values, but an output schema exists. Overall, it is incomplete for the tool's richness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains input_path, output_path, and outlines audio_config with drone and events. However, it does not fully specify the structure (e.g., event format, volume ranges). It adds value over the empty schema but leaves gaps.

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 'Add procedurally generated audio to a video', specifying the verb and resource. It mentions it's a 'one-shot convenience function to generate and add audio', which differentiates from sibling tools like video_add_audio (add existing audio) or audio_synthesize (generate only). However, it does not explicitly compare to all related siblings, so it's clear but not fully distinguished.

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 calls it a 'one-shot convenience function', implying quick use, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like using audio_synthesize then video_add_audio. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.

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