extract_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: overwrite behavior on an existing output_path, whether the source audio stream is re-encoded or copied, failure modes for files with no audio, and permissions are all unstated. Only the supported output formats are revealed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the operation and output formats come first. It is efficient, though efficiency here comes partly at the cost of omitted detail rather than through tight editing of rich content.

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 five-parameter file-mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what dry_run or normalize do or what the tool returns on success.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only enumerates the audio_format enum values that the schema already lists. The required input_path/output_path, plus dry_run and normalize — which materially change behavior — get no explanation at all.

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?

States a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('audio track from media file'), which unambiguously separates it from the video-editing siblings like trim_clip or burn_subtitles. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the operation is distinct enough that no agent would confuse it.

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 use this tool versus the sibling media tools, nor any stated preconditions (e.g. that the source file must contain an audio stream). The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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