isolate_audio

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

The description contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation (true) by stating it saves an output file, implying a mutation. According to guidelines, this contradiction warrants a score of 1.

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 two concise sentences plus a cost warning, all of which are essential and free of filler. It is efficiently front-loaded.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks details on what 'isolate audio' means (e.g., vocal extraction), file format support, and parameter constraints. Important context is missing.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value by only noting the default output directory. It does not explain the input_file_path parameter requirements or the output format, leaving significant gaps.

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 clearly states the action 'Isolate audio from a file' and specifies the output destination with a default. While it doesn't detail the exact nature of isolation (e.g., vocal extraction), it is sufficiently clear and distinct from sibling tools like speech_to_text.

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 cost warning explicitly states that the tool should only be used when the user explicitly requests it, providing clear usage guidance. However, it does not mention alternative tools or scenarios where this tool should be avoided beyond the cost.

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