edit_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output ('one WAV path per candidate'), which is valuable given there is no output schema, and the mode semantics make clear the input is not destructively modified in place. But it omits side effects (files written to disk, metadata), model-loading cost/latency, and any constraints on the input clip's format or length.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and mode enumeration followed by the return contract, then a clearly-labeled tip. Nothing is redundant with the schema. The tip is slightly tangential to selection but earns its place as non-obvious expert guidance.

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 an 18-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, modes, and return shape, which is the essential core. It still leaves an agent without guidance on typical failure conditions, input-length limits, or the runtime cost of generating up to 4 candidates, so a caller could invoke it correctly but not confidently plan around it.

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 83%, so most parameters (mode, strength, overlap_seconds, duration_seconds, start/end_seconds, seed, title, prompt) are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the tip's indirect hint that the inpaint region is adjustable; the genuinely undocumented params (bpm, cfg, steps, peak_ceiling_db, original_idea) are not covered here either.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit existing audio') and enumerates the three concrete modes (variation, inpaint, continue), which map directly to the mode enum. It also discloses the return shape ('one WAV path per candidate'). It stops short of naming generate_audio/process_audio as the alternatives, so differentiation is implied by 'existing audio' rather than stated.

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 three modes are named and each is briefly characterized, and the 'Official tip' gives real craft guidance (inpaint a large region then shrink it, keep prompts plausible). However there is no explicit when-to-use-this-versus-alternatives guidance: nothing says when to reach for edit_audio instead of generate_audio or process_audio, nor any prerequisites for the input file.

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