strip_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the video stream is copied without re-encoding, which is a useful technical detail beyond the basic purpose. It does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., no audio track) but covers the key behavior.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the primary purpose, and the second provides a key technical detail. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 file-processing tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the result (silent video) and the processing method (no re-encoding). It lacks only minor details like error handling, which are not essential for basic use.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters (file_path, output_path) have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 removes the audio track from a video file and produces a silent video, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like extract_audio (which would extract audio to a separate file) by noting the output is a silent video.

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 usage when a silent video is needed, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like adjust_volume or extract_audio are not mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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