trim_audio

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that the operation is file-local rather than asset-based, but never states what the output is, whether a new file is written under 'filename', what 'overwrite' changes, or whether an existing file is destroyed — all material for a write-to-disk tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is well structured but so terse that brevity shades into under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 six-parameter tool with four required fields, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is far short of what an agent needs. It should at minimum cover the input/output file relationship and overwrite behavior.

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 explain all six parameters. It only clarifies that start/duration are in seconds, which the property names already imply, and says nothing about input_path, filename, format enum, or overwrite semantics — a substantial gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Trim local audio') plus the two core inputs (start offset, duration in seconds), so the operation is unmistakable. It does not name or contrast with close siblings such as split_audio, convert_audio, or merge_audio, so differentiation is left to the agent.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. An agent cannot tell from the description when trimming is preferable to split_audio for cutting segments or to convert_audio for format changes, both of which are plausible siblings for the same local-file workflow.

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