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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies an audio transformation but says nothing about async execution, required audio upload/source key, credits, output handling, or whether the operation creates a new file.

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 description is very short and front-loaded, with no verbose filler. However, its brevity is partly under-specification rather than optimal conciseness for a four-parameter tool.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and four parameters including required source_key and kwargs, the definition is not complete enough. It lacks essential context about input format, async behavior, and return values.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description explains only the mode parameter values. It does not clarify source_key, kwargs, or format, leaving three of four parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 a specific verb and resource: denoising audio, with a music/speech mode distinction. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling audio tools, but the purpose is still clear.

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?

It only says mode='music' or 'speech', which is parameter value guidance rather than when-to-use guidance. It does not explain when to choose denoise_audio over siblings such as extract_vocals or split_4stems, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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