audio_convert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses accepted input types (audio/*, .m4a, .opus, .aac, .wma) and the 200 MB per-file size limit, but does not mention side effects like whether original files are preserved, output location behavior, or error handling. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 three sentences and mostly front-loaded. The first sentence has minor redundancy ('Audio converter' followed by 'Convert audio'), but the rest is efficient, providing key options and constraints without fluff.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential input constraints, format options, and file size limit. It omits output-directory behavior, but that is documented in the schema. The description is reasonably complete for the tool's 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 explicitly explaining the purpose of bitrate, mono, and sample rate options ('Pick a bitrate, drop it to mono, change the sample rate'), and the input format/size constraints for paths. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('audio between MP3, AAC, OPUS, FLAC, WAV and OGG'). It distinguishes itself from sibling audio tools like audio_extract or audio_trim by focusing on format conversion.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—whenever audio format conversion is needed—and lists supported formats. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but sibling differentiation is implicit through the conversion-focused wording.

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