set_audio_channels

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains the inputs and return type (status message) but does not disclose whether it overwrites an existing output file, preserves other audio properties, or has file format requirements. This is a moderate level of transparency for a simple tool.

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 well-structured docstring with a clear one-sentence summary followed by an Args section and Returns. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the purpose, arguments, and return value. An output schema exists, so detailed return format is not needed. Minor gaps remain around overwrite behavior and workspace requirements, but the description is adequate for a straightforward file manipulation utility.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters and adds meaningful detail for 'channels' (1 for mono, 2 for stereo), clarifying the allowed values. The paths are self-explanatory, so the description adds value beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb, 'Sets the number of channels for an audio file,' and explicitly scopes to audio files with channel values. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_audio_sample_rate and set_video_audio_track_channels.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for setting channel count on audio files, with no ambiguity about its resource. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like convert_audio_properties or set_video_audio_track_channels, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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