extract_audio

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the extract action and does not disclose whether the input video is modified, what output artifact is produced, or what formats/paths are expected. The behavior is too underspecified for a media-processing tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient for a one-parameter tool. It is appropriately brief but it also omits details, so it is not maximally informative.

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?

Complexity is low and the schema is small, but the complete absence of annotations and output schema means the description should explain the return value or artifact produced. It does not, so an agent has insufficient context to know what a successful call yields.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining input_video beyond the video source. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about accepted formats, file paths, or how the extracted audio is returned.

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 names a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('audio from a video'), making the core operation clear and semantically distinct from siblings like extract_frame, remove_audio, and replace_audio. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 given about when to choose extract_audio versus related audio/video tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or notes about using alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the name alone.

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