convert_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states capabilities. It does not disclose whether the input is modified, whether existing output files are overwritten, whether external dependencies like FFmpeg are required (the check_dependencies sibling hints this matters), or whether conversions may be long-running.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the core purpose, then delivers the supported format list and three capabilities with zero filler. It does not repeat any parameter descriptions already present in the schema.

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 tool with a nested 13-option object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the primary use cases well but omits what is returned after conversion, prerequisite setup (suggested by the check_dependencies sibling), and output-path/overwrite behavior. This leaves notable gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking high-level goals to option groups: 提取音频 maps to extract_audio_only, 截取片段 maps to start_time/duration, and 嵌入字幕 maps to subtitle_path — helping an agent choose the right parameters for a stated request.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('音频/视频格式互转') and enumerates 12 supported formats plus three distinct capabilities (audio extraction, segment cutting, subtitle embedding). This clearly differentiates it from sibling converters like convert_image, convert_document, and convert_pdf.

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 format list makes it implicitly clear this tool handles audio/video, but the description never states exclusions or names alternatives. Notably, it mentions embedding subtitles while convert_subtitle exists as a sibling, and batch_convert could overlap as well; no routing guidance is given for such cases.

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