Extract audio

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

The phrase 'pull out' is ambiguous and could be read as removing the audio from the video, especially given the existence of a sibling named remove_audio. The description does not clarify that the original video is left unchanged, nor does it address potential side effects such as overwriting files or supporting source video formats. With no annotations, this ambiguity and lack of behavioral disclosure is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action, then lists the output formats. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or filler. It is extremely concise while still being informative.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to clarify whether the operation is non-destructive to the source video, especially given the sibling tools remove_audio and replace_audio. It also doesn't mention default behavior when output_path is omitted or whether the original file is preserved. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool safely and correctly.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 3 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—the mention of formats (mp3, wav, m4a, flac) is already captured in the format parameter's enum and description. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Pull the audio track out of a video') and the result ('into its own file'), listing all supported output formats. This distinguishes it from siblings like remove_audio and replace_audio, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 usage when a standalone audio file is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like remove_audio or replace_audio. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving usage guidance to inference.

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