extract_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 main output behavior and adds useful behavioral detail for the 'background' flag — running as a job and returning a job_id — but it does not mention output file naming, whether existing files are overwritten, or behavior for synchronous runs beyond implication.

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 one-sentence summary is front-loaded, and the Args block is compact and useful. Every line adds a distinct piece of information with no filler.

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 a three-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core workflow and all parameters. A small gap remains in not stating where the extracted audio file is written or that the non-background path runs synchronously, but this is minor given the output schema exists.

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, and it does: 'path' is specified as video relative to the workspace, 'audio_format' lists the allowed values, and 'background' is explained as job execution returning a job_id. This is exactly the semantic information missing from the schema.

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 opens with a specific action and object — 'Extracts the audio track from a video to a separate file' — which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like transcribe_audio, extract_frame, and probe_video. Even without explicitly naming alternatives, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 is given about when to choose this over transcribe_audio, extract_frame, or other video tools. The usage context is only implied by the purpose statement, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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