set_video_audio_track_sample_rate

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention a key behavior (attempting to copy the video stream) and the return type (status message), but it lacks details on fallback behavior if copying fails, potential overwrite semantics, or side effects. This gives some transparency but leaves important gaps.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, then a clearly separated Args section with per-parameter explanations, and a Returns line. Every part earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple three-parameter tool, the description covers the main action, parameter meanings, and return value. It is fairly complete, but it could be more complete by explaining the implications of 'attempting' to copy the video stream (e.g., what happens if it fails) and any required dependencies. These are minor omissions given 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by providing clear one-line explanations for each parameter. It clarifies that input_video_path is the source, output_video_path is the destination, and audio_sample_rate is in Hz with examples. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw 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 clearly states a specific action: "Sets the audio sample rate of a video's audio track, attempting to copy the video stream." This distinguishes it from siblings like set_audio_sample_rate (which likely operates on standalone audio files) and other video/audio track tools by emphasizing the video context and stream preservation attempt.

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?

Usage guidance is only implied through the description's focus on video and the mention of copying the video stream. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_audio_sample_rate or extract_audio_from_video, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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