denoise

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two useful traits: video is copied untouched and the return is an output path. However, it says nothing about whether the source is modified, permission or environment prerequisites, failure modes, or how aggressive processing affects speech.

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 short sentences with zero filler: what it does first, then the video-passthrough caveat, then the return value. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple transformation tool with full schema coverage, the description covers behavior, side effects on video, and return value. Only the interaction with related tools (normalize_audio, compress) is unaddressed.

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 100%, including the strength enum with dB values and the overwrite default, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb ('reduce') and resource ('steady background noise: fan, hum, hiss') plus the technique (adaptive FFT denoiser). It is clearly different from sibling normalize_audio in substance, but never names that sibling explicitly, so the distinction relies on the agent inferring it.

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 targeted noise types ('steady background noise') imply when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the closest alternatives (normalize_audio, compress, extract_audio). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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