review_silence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses non-destructiveness ('never deletes clips'), scope of analysis ('starts at the clip's in-point'), and exclusions ('excludes Fairlight processing'). This is meaningful beyond the raw schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose and safety first, then analysis scope, then workflow. Each sentence adds value, though the second and third sentences could be combined without loss.

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?

The workflow integration with apply_silence_cuts is helpful, and an output schema exists, but the complete absence of parameter semantics leaves a major gap. The description does not state how to identify the target clip or what the threshold/duration parameters control, making the tool incomplete for autonomous use.

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 for the five parameters. It does not explain item_id, track_index, max_duration_seconds, min_silence_duration, or silence_threshold_db, nor does it map 'a clip' to any parameter. An agent cannot confidently set these parameters from the description alone.

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 tool's action: analyze source audio for a clip and place yellow review markers. It also distinguishes itself from apply_silence_cuts by explicitly framing this as the review step before cuts are applied, and the 'never deletes clips' clause prevents confusion with destructive editing tools.

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 gives a clear workflow: audit the markers, then pass accepted marker IDs to apply_silence_cuts. This tells an agent when to use the tool and what to do with its output. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the workflow context is strong enough.

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