audio_convert

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

Annotations already disclose that the operation is destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral constraints beyond annotations: video inputs are reduced to audio, and the output extension must match the requested format. It does not explain overwrite semantics, keeping it short of a 5.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds operational detail about formats, video input handling, or output constraints.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the destructive safety profile. However, for a tool that can overwrite output files, the description omits overwrite behavior and does not fully compensate for the absent parameter descriptions.

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 must compensate. It does add meaningful semantics for input_path (may be video) and output_path (extension must match format), but it does not explain overwrite behavior, leaving one parameter's semantics to the schema and annotations.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Convert audio') and explicitly lists supported output formats. The note that video input keeps only its audio further sharpens the scope, making it clearly distinct from info-oriented siblings like audio_info or video_info.

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 when to use the tool by describing conversion behavior, but it does not explicitly contrast it with audio_info, video_info, or explain when not to use it. Usage is inferable but not fully guided.

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