Convert audio files

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not open-world, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds useful operational context — accepted input formats, target formats, and the fact that it delegates to SoundCraft's converter — but does not disclose overwrite semantics, where outputs land, or whether existing files are affected, which matters for a tool that writes to disk.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence led by the verb, with no filler. It is dense with parenthetical format lists but every clause carries information; the only mild cost is readability from packing all options into one sentence.

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 an 11-parameter write tool with no output schema and only 36% schema coverage, the description covers the core conversion story but omits output behavior (where files are written, what is returned) and several parameters. It is adequate to attempt a call but incomplete for confident edge-case handling like overwriting.

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 only 36%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it clarifies input cardinality (one, a list, or a folder, mapping to input_path/input_paths/input_dir) and names sample rate, bit depth, and normalize. However it says nothing about suffix, overwrite, or output_path/output_dir semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 gives a specific verb (convert) and resource (audio files), and enumerates accepted input formats (WAV, AIFF, FLAC, MP3, OGG, M4A/AAC, ALAC, CAF) and target formats (WAV, AIFF, FLAC), plus its optional transformations. It clearly describes the operation, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling process_audio, leaving some ambiguity about which to pick.

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 explains optional capabilities (sample rate, bit depth, normalizing) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus process_audio or export_session, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only weakly implied by the verb 'convert'.

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