video_extract_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but lacks behavioral details such as permissions needed, whether it modifies the original file, error handling, performance characteristics, or what the output schema contains. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured Args section that efficiently documents parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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's moderate complexity (audio extraction from video), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the basics but lacks behavioral context. It explains parameters well but misses operational details like side effects or error conditions, leaving gaps despite the output schema handling return values.

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%, but the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: input_path (absolute path to video), output_path (save location with auto-generation if omitted), and format (audio formats with examples). It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify default behaviors in detail.

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 specific action ('Extract the audio track') and resource ('from a video file'), distinguishing it from siblings like video_convert or video_merge. It precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like video_convert (which might also handle audio extraction).

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