merge_audios

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions merge methods but does not state whether input files are altered, expected behavior on invalid paths, or whether output overwrites existing files. For a mutation tool, these are significant 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?

Description is concise but structured with Args and Returns sections. While short, it covers key aspects without redundancy. The Chinese is appropriate for the target audience. Slightly more detail on merge_method could improve without bloat.

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?

Given no output schema, the Returns section is vague ('merge result information'). For a tool with 3 params (1 required), it covers parameter purposes but lacks error behavior, file format support, or limitations. Compared to siblings, it is minimally complete.

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 0%, so description adds essential meaning. It explains audio_paths is a comma-separated string list, output_path is optional, and merge_method has options 'concat' (default) and 'mix'. This clarifies the string type and default beyond schema. However, it could add format constraints.

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 merges multiple audio files, with merge methods (concat/mix) distinguishing it from siblings like merge_videos and convert_audio_format. The verb 'merge' and resource 'audio files' are explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use merge_audios vs alternatives (e.g., merge_videos, extract_audio_from_video). The merge_method options are listed but no criteria for choosing concat vs mix. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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