Post-process audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely non-obvious behavioural fact — that enabling loop shortens the file by the crossfade length — which cannot be inferred from the schema. But it says nothing about write semantics: whether output_path is overwritten, whether processing is in-place, or what happens on failure.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the concrete operations before the pipeline framing and the loop side-effect. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the schema documents all five parameters and defaults. The description covers the pipeline role and the loop truncation behaviour; the only material omission for a file-writing tool with no annotations is overwrite/error behaviour.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining the interaction between loop and fade_ms (the seam crossfade truncates the total length), which is cross-parameter meaning the schema does not state. Other parameters (target_dbfs, input/output paths) are left entirely to 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 names three concrete operations (trim silence, crossfade ends, normalise level) on a specific resource (an audio take), and frames it as the finishing step after a take is chosen. This clearly separates it from the sibling generators such as generate_audio and synth_sound, which produce rather than finish audio.

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?

"This is the step that turns a chosen take into a finished asset" positions the tool in the pipeline and tells the agent it operates on an already-produced file rather than raw parameters. It does not, however, name alternatives or state exclusions (e.g. what to do if the take is already processed).

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