Replace audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important non-obvious behavior: the output duration follows the shorter of the two sources unless loop_audio is set. This adds value beyond the schema. It doesn't cover every edge case, but the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only relevant details. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 clear schema and simple operation, the description covers purpose and key behavior. It does not explicitly state whether the input is modified or a new file is created, but the output_path parameter strongly implies a new file. Minor gap, but overall sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a slight nuance by connecting loop_audio to the duration behavior, but this partially overlaps with the schema's description for that parameter. No other parameters receive additional detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Replace') and identifies the exact resources (a video's audio track and a different audio file). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like remove_audio or extract_audio by conveying a swap action.

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 clear context by providing examples ('background music or a voiceover') and implies the use case of swapping out the audio track. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the action is distinct enough to guide the agent.

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