track_stereo_to_mono

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the conversion action but omits critical details: whether the operation is destructive, if the original track is replaced or a new track created, and any requirements like the track being stereo. The agent lacks necessary behavioral context.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, no wasted words. The action verb 'Convert' is front-loaded, and the entire description is to the point.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description still lacks completeness: it does not specify the result (e.g., whether the stereo track is replaced or a new mono track appears), any preconditions (e.g., track must be stereo), or potential side effects. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but for a parameterless tool, baseline 4 is appropriate as the schema already conveys the absence of inputs.

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 converts a selected stereo track to mono, specifying the action (convert) and resource (stereo track to mono). It distinguishes from siblings like track_add_mono which adds a new mono track, not conversion.

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 only advises to 'Select the track first,' a prerequisite, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as track_add_mono or effect_vocal_reduction. No explicit comparison or context for tool selection.

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