replace_audio

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

The word 'Replace' communicates that the existing audio will be overwritten, which is an important destructive behavior. However, with no annotations or output schema, the description does not clarify whether the original video file is modified in place, whether a new file is produced, or what happens to the previous audio track.

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 wasted words. It is concise, though its brevity comes at the expense of critical supporting details that would help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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?

For a destructive media operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, this description is too sparse to be complete. It omits expected inputs, return behavior, and safety implications, all of which the agent would need for reliable invocation.

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 adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain that input_video is the source video and audio_file is the replacement audio, so the agent receives no semantic support beyond the raw parameter names.

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 states a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('the video's existing audio'), so the core action is clear. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like add_audio or remove_audio, which would have made the distinction stronger.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose replace_audio over alternatives such as add_audio, remove_audio, or fade_audio. The description only defines the operation and leaves the agent to infer the appropriate selection context.

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