auto_cleanup_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs in background and returns a job_id immediately, lists the exact pipeline steps (DC offset removal > HPF 80Hz > optional noise reduction > optional click removal), states what it does NOT do (compression, normalize, LUFS), and notes the critical prerequisite about the first 0.5 seconds being silence if noise reduction is enabled. It also warns about concurrent pipeline calls.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the core purpose and key constraint ("SAFE CLEANUP: Remove noise and artifacts WITHOUT changing loudness or dynamics") appear first. The pipeline overview and parameter details are organized with headers and bullet points. Every sentence adds value—there is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return value (job_id), how to monitor (check_pipeline_status), the processing pipeline, parameter behaviors, prerequisites (silence for the noise profile), and concurrency rules. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 the parameters. It does: remove_noise is explained as "Apply noise reduction using first 0.5s as noise profile" with default True, and remove_clicks as "Remove clicks/pops (useful for vinyl/old recordings)" with default False. It also adds the important caveat about the noise profile requirement, which is not in 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 states a specific verb and object: "Remove noise and artifacts WITHOUT changing loudness or dynamics," and explicitly frames it as a "SAFE CLEANUP" tool. It differentiates itself from siblings by emphasizing that it does not alter loudness or dynamics, making it clear it is for cleanup only when levels are already good.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: "Use this when audio levels are already good and you just want to clean it up." It also gives a clear exclusion: "DO NOT call this again if a pipeline is already running — use check_pipeline_status instead," and directs the user to monitor via check_pipeline_status. This provides both when and when-not guidance.

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