isolate_audio

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

The description states the tool makes an API call and saves a file, implying a mutation. However, the annotation readOnlyHint=true indicates a read-only operation, creating a direct contradiction. Additionally, the openWorldHint adds further confusion. Score 1 per guideline for contradiction.

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 sentences with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second provides a critical usage warning. Very concise and well-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 (not shown), the description lacks details on return format, file types, or behavioral nuances. The contradiction with annotations further reduces completeness. The tool is simple but still requires more context for safe invocation.

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 adds meaning for output_directory by specifying the default ($HOME/Desktop), but input_file_path remains unexplained (relies on param type 'string'). Partial compensation leads to a score of 3.

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 'Isolate audio from a file' which is a specific verb+resource. While it distinguishes from sibling tools like speech_to_text or compose_music, it doesn't elaborate on what 'isolate' entails (e.g., vocals from background). The action is unambiguous enough for selection.

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 description includes a cost warning and explicitly states 'Only use when explicitly requested by the user', providing clear context for usage. However, it does not specify when NOT to use it or list alternative tools for similar tasks.

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