extract_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions creating a new audio clip but does not clarify whether the original video is modified, whether the audio is copied or moved, or any format requirements. The phrase 'pull out' is ambiguous regarding the fate of the original audio.

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?

A single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. It is appropriately concise.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core action but lacks parameter semantics and behavioral details such as whether the original video is altered. It is adequate but leaves gaps that could confuse an agent.

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?

The schema has one required parameter clip_id with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what clip_id refers to. While it is inferable as the source video clip, the tool description should explicitly state this to avoid ambiguity.

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 action ('Pull the audio track out of a video') and the outcome ('as a new audio clip'). It distinguishes from siblings like remove_audio and attach_audio by specifying it creates a new clip.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you need the audio track as a separate clip. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but the sibling context suggests it differs from remove_audio (which likely removes audio without creating a separate clip) and attach_audio (which adds audio).

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