video_extract_audio

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

The description mentions that output_path is auto-generated if omitted and gives audio format options, but otherwise lacks behavioral details such as error handling, side effects, or requirements (e.g., codecs). While there is an output schema, it is not shown, and no annotations are present.

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, using three short bullet points for parameters, and front-loads the main purpose in one sentence. Every piece of information is relevant and non-redundant.

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 three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality but omits details like required libraries, error scenarios, or performance considerations. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds meaning for all three parameters: explains input_path as absolute path, notes output_path auto-generation, and lists common audio format values for the format parameter.

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 action ('Extract the audio track') and the target resource ('from a video file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that compose or modify audio rather than extracting.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like audio_compose or video_add_audio. No usage context 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.