edit_audio_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It defines what the trim/fade values do semantically (seconds to remove, fade length), which is useful, but it omits key behavioral facts: whether the edit is destructive to the underlying audio file, whether it is reversible, what happens to already-applied fades, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in one sentence, followed by a compact parameter glossary that earns its place given the 0% schema coverage. There is no filler or repetition.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete: the operation and value units are clear, and four parameters are explained. But it leaves the required track_index/item_index undocumented and provides no behavioral context about mutability or results, so an agent still lacks information needed to call it confidently.

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 does well for four parameters, clarifying that start_trim removes seconds from the beginning, end_trim from the end, fade_in/fade_out set fade lengths in seconds. However, the two required parameters—track_index and item_index—are never explained, so the agent gets no guidance on how to identify the target item.

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 and resource: 'Trim an audio item and/or add fades.' An agent can tell exactly what operation is performed. It does not differentiate from any sibling, though no sibling performs the same operation, so ambiguity is limited.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions. The reader must infer usage purely from the parameter list; the description never says 'use this to trim an existing audio item' or warns about related tools like adjust_playback_rate.

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