audio_extract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the primary action and output formats, but it does not mention side effects such as file creation, overwriting, output location, return values, or failure conditions when no audio track exists. Core behavior is clear, but operational behavior is under-specified.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and directly communicates the supported output formats, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 absence of annotations, an output schema, and parameter descriptions, the tool description is not complete enough. It fails to explain the input parameter's type or source, what the tool returns, or any constraints like supported container formats or codec requirements. An agent would likely need additional documentation to call this tool correctly in non-trivial cases.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the format parameter by mapping it to WAV, MP3, and AAC/M4A, which partially overlaps with the enum. However, it does not clarify what the required 'input' parameter refers to—whether it is a file path, media ID, or URL—leaving the main parameter semantically ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Extract', names the exact resource, 'the first audio track', and lists concrete output formats. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like media_extract_frames or audio_mix, making the tool's purpose 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?

The description implies the tool should be used when a user wants to extract the first audio track and convert it to WAV, MP3, or M4A. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools such as audio_add_track, audio_mix, or media_extract_frames, and it does not mention exclusions.

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