click_removal

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic effect (remove clicks and pops) and parameter effects, but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it applies only to the current selection (though it says 'selected audio'), or any side effects. This is minimal transparency for a processing 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: a single-purpose sentence followed by a neatly formatted argument list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or tangential content.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core invocation needs: purpose and parameter semantics. However, it omits any note about whether the edit is undoable, the processing scope beyond 'selected audio', or performance implications, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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 schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description compensates by explaining both parameters (threshold and spike_width) with ranges, defaults, and qualitative effects (e.g., 'Higher = fewer clicks removed'). This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema fields.

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 resource: 'Remove clicks and pops from the selected audio.' It adds a clarifying example ('vinyl recordings') that helps distinguish it from generic repair or noise-removal tools. This is a clear, unambiguous statement of purpose.

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 gives a context clue ('vinyl recordings') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like effect_repair or analyze_find_clipping. It lacks any mention of complementary or conflicting tools, leaving routing to the agent's inference.

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