label_silence_regions

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is non-destructive to timeline length (muting rather than deleting), states 'The labels themselves stay where they are,' and clarifies the scope (selected tracks + selection). These are the key behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether the operation is undoable, but for an edit tool this is reasonably complete.

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?

Compact, multi-line description that front-loads the core action in the first line, then justification, then operational prerequisites. Every sentence adds meaningful value — no filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

0 params, no output schema. The description clearly explains the operation's effect (silencing labeled audio, keeping timeline length, labels remain), prerequisites (selection, selected tracks), and use cases. It doesn't explicitly describe what happens to existing silence or plugins at label boundaries, but for a 0-param mutation tool it's well covered.

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?

Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the parameter dimension is trivially satisfied. The description indicates operation scope (labeled regions in selection on selected tracks) rather than relying on parameters. Baseline 4 for 0-param tool is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Replace the audio under every label with silence, keeping the timeline length.' Distinguishes from siblings like label_delete_regions (removes audio, shortening), label_cut_regions, and edit_silence. The key differentiator 'keeping the timeline length' is explicit.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Use when the material must not get shorter — redacting a name, muting a noise burst in a take that has to stay in sync.' Also gives explicit operational prerequisites: acts on labeled regions within the current selection on SELECTED AUDIO TRACKS, with instructions to select tracks and time range first. This clearly separates it from region-deleting alternatives.

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