extract_audio

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return value ('Returns the output path') and the available codecs, which is useful, but it says nothing about whether files are written to disk, overwrite semantics, or failure behavior when the source has no 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?

Two short sentences, both front-loaded with the core action and the return value; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 4-parameter file operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action, format choices, and the returned path. Only edge-case behavior (missing audio stream, overwrite conflicts) is left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 100% and every parameter (input, format, output, overwrite) is documented in the schema, including the copy-codec nuance. The description only restates the format options, adding no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Extract') on a specific resource ('the audio track of a media file') and states the output artifact. An agent can distinguish it from generic 'convert' or 'normalize_audio', though the description never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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 purpose implies when to use it (pulling an audio-only file out of a video), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as convert, normalize_audio, or transcribe, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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