assemble_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that pauses of 1.5s are inserted between chapters, that output is loudness-normalized to -16 LUFS, and that missing segments cause failure unless allow_missing=true. It omits whether existing output files are overwritten or what happens on partial failure, which keeps it below 5.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the output targets and the allow_missing flag are front-loaded. The arrow notation and parentheticals pack a lot of meaning efficiently.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers outputs, normalization, pause behavior and the draft mode. For a file-writing tool with no annotations, the main remaining gap is overwrite/side-effect disclosure.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for 4 undocumented parameters. It fully explains allow_missing and partially implies loudnorm (normalization to -16 LUFS), but leaves run and format unexplained, and oddly describes pause_after_ms which is not in the schema. Coverage is partial.

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 (ghép/assemble) plus resource (audio segments in script order) and names the exact output artifacts out/story.wav and out/story.mp3. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like tts_render, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

It gives one concrete usage condition – allow_missing=true for building a draft when some segments aren't read yet – which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, there is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g. whether all segments must be rendered first) or on when to prefer assemble_audio over qa_audio/tts_render in a workflow.

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