merge_audio_files

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses ffmpeg usage, merge modes (plain, gap, crossfade), mutual exclusivity of gap_ms and crossfade_ms, and output format auto-detection. Fully transparent.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with purpose, then detail. No unnecessary words or repetition. Efficient and clear.

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?

With output schema present, description covers key behavioral aspects and use case. Slight lack of edge-case handling (e.g., unsupported formats) but overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, but description explains gap_ms, crossfade_ms, and output_format in detail. Input_paths is self-explanatory. Compensates well for missing schema descriptions.

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 local audio files using ffmpeg, specifying the verb 'merge' and the resource 'audio files'. It distinguishes from siblings (e.g., text_to_speech) which are unrelated.

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?

Provides explicit use case: 'stitch multiple text_to_speech outputs into one deliverable'. Does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to other tools, but siblings are clearly different, so guidance is adequate.

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