set_video_audio_track_channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'attempts' to copy the video stream, indicating a potential fallback or limitation. It also notes the return value is a status message. However, it does not mention side effects like overwriting existing files, behavior for invalid audio_channels values, or any format compatibility constraints. The transparency is partial and not deeply detailed.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and structured clearly with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content. It efficiently conveys the operation and all parameter semantics.

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?

Despite having no annotations and a simple schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, all parameter meanings, and the return value, which is sufficient for basic invocation. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases (e.g., invalid channel counts, output overwriting, or video stream copy failure), and there is no explicit usage context beyond the implied use. For a tool of this complexity, it is mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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 only titles and types with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by documenting all three parameters: input_video_path, output_video_path, and audio_channels, with a useful clarification that audio_channels takes 1 for mono and 2 for stereo. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though the explanations are brief.

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 'Sets the number of audio channels of a video's audio track, attempting to copy the video stream.' It specifies a precise action (set audio channels) targeting a specific resource (video's audio track) and distinguishes itself from siblings like set_audio_channels (which likely targets standalone audio files) by explicitly referencing a video context.

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 a use case (changing audio channels on a video while preserving video stream) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or mention exclusions. Sibling tools exist (e.g., set_audio_channels for pure audio), but no direct comparison is given. The 'attempting to copy the video stream' hints at the intent to avoid re-encoding, which is useful, but explicit guidance is lacking.

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