mirelo_inpaint_audio_with_video_generate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses synchronous operation and model restriction but omits side effects (e.g., original audio unchanged), required permissions, rate limits, or failure modes. Adequate but not thorough.

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 concise sentences front-load the action and key resources. Every clause adds value: synchronous, bounded segment, conditional generation, model version, and output type. No waste.

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?

Given 6 parameters with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the core operation but misses details like return format (plural URLs from num_samples?), constraints (segment length validated in schema), and default values. Nearly complete but could expand slightly.

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% with detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description only summarizes required inputs ('audio and video Input_Sources and a segment'), adding minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's own documentation.

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 function: synchronously replacing a segment of audio conditioned by a video. It specifies inputs (audio, video, segment), output (audio URL), and model version (v1.6 only), distinguishing it from siblings like mirelo_inpaint_audio_generate.

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 implies when to use this tool (when video conditioning is needed) vs the non-video variant present in siblings. However, it lacks explicit when-not or alternative guidance, such as when preflight or submit tools are more appropriate.

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