remove_silence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the core behavior (removes silent segments) and indicates a status-message return, but does not disclose side effects such as whether the original file is preserved, overwrite behavior, or failure modes. It is not misleading, but it lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 well-structured with an Args/Returns format and front-loaded purpose statement. Each parameter line earns its place, though the overall length is slightly more than the minimum needed. No redundant fluff.

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 4-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, all parameters, and return value. Since an output schema is indicated, detailed return formatting is unnecessary. Minor gaps remain around edge cases like missing output directories or unsupported media types, but overall the tool is well specified.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates by defining each parameter's purpose and units: 'noise level (in dBFS) below which is considered silence' and 'Minimum duration (in milliseconds) of silence to be removed.' This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 'Removes' with a clear resource: 'silent segments from an audio or video file.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like trim_video or convert_* because no other tool targets silence removal.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever silent segments need to be removed from media. It does not mention explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose statement itself provides clear context, and no sibling tool competes for this functionality.

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