Remove audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: no re-encoding, implying fast, likely lossless operation. However, it does not disclose what happens when output_path is omitted, whether it overwrites files, or how it handles multiple audio tracks, which are important gaps for a mutation tool.

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 short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds the valuable performance characteristic 'Fast — no re-encoding' without unnecessary verbosity.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and a performance trait. It lacks guidance on optional output_path behavior and return values, but the schema and purpose suffice for basic 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described minimally in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level details, so it relies on the schema, which meets the baseline but doesn't enrich meaning.

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 uses a specific verb 'strip' and clearly names the resource 'audio track from a video', with the outcome 'leaving silent video'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_audio, which preserve audio as a separate file, by clarifying the video remains but is silenced.

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 the tool is for removing audio to produce silent video, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like extract_audio or replace_audio, nor provide any exclusions. The performance note 'Fast — no re-encoding' hints at a benefit but doesn't guide tool selection.

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