Remove audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must shoulder the behavioral burden. It discloses the key behavior (strips audio, leaves silent video) and adds the performance trait of no re-encoding. Missing details include whether the original input is preserved, how multiple audio tracks are handled, or any format limitations, but for a simple operation the core behavior is covered.

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 only two short sentences and gets straight to the point. Every word adds value: it states the action, the result, and a useful performance characteristic. No filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and outcome effectively. It falls short only in not mentioning edge cases like multiple audio tracks or confirming the original file is left untouched, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 clear descriptions for input_path and output_path, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, such as file format requirements or path conventions.

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 with a specific verb ('Strip') and resource ('the audio track from a video'), and specifies the outcome ('leaving silent video'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like extract_audio, which would export the audio separately, and replace_audio, which would swap the track.

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 tool's purpose implicitly tells the user when to use it (when silent video is desired), and the 'Fast — no re-encoding' note adds a performance-oriented use case. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using extract_audio to save the audio track instead of removing it.

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