auto_cleanup_live

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses background execution, immediate job_id return, the exact pipeline stages, fixed 12dB noise reduction, and the room-tone precondition. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is destructive or what audio scope it affects, but it discloses more non-obvious behavior than most tool descriptions.

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 front-loads a clear purpose, then uses a compact pipeline list and two important warnings. Each sentence earns its place; there is no filler. The slight repetition between 'noisy/field recordings' and 'field recordings, and noisy environments' is minor and does not detract from the structure.

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?

The description covers the async behavior, job_id, monitoring via check_pipeline_status, the processing chain, the room-tone precondition, and the concurrency constraint. The main gap is that it never says what audio the cleanup applies to (current selection, track, or whole project) or whether the result is destructive/irreversible. Otherwise, the invocation contract is complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema has an empty properties object, so there is no parameter-level meaning for the description to add. The room-tone requirement is an operational precondition rather than a parameter, which is useful context but keeps the no-parameter baseline at 4.

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 opens with a clear one-liner: 'ONE-CLICK LIVE RECORDING CLEANUP: Aggressive processing for noisy/field recordings.' It names a specific verb, resource, and domain, and explicitly targets live performances, field recordings, and noisy environments, which distinguishes it from podcast, interview, and vocal sibling tools.

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?

The description states when to use the tool ('Designed for live performances, field recordings, and noisy environments') and provides explicit when-not guidance: 'DO NOT call this again if a pipeline is already running — use check_pipeline_status instead.' It also gives a hard prerequisite: the first 0.5 seconds must be room tone.

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