apply_low_audibility_suppression_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful, non-obvious trait — audio is left untouched, so the mutation is transcript-only — but it says nothing about reversibility, idempotency, permissions, or how the supplied ``words`` are matched.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the trailing 'leaves audio unchanged' clause earns its place. Minor deduction for terse phrasing that leaves the optional-words semantics slightly ambiguous.

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. But for a four-parameter, zero-required, zero-annotation mutation tool, the description omits parameter meanings, prerequisites, and alternatives — substantially incomplete for its complexity.

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% across four parameters, and the description only addresses ``words`` (optional narrowing of the target set). speaker, track_id, and project_path receive no meaning in either the schema or the description, leaving the agent to guess at scoping behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: suppressing low-audibility transcript words, with the 'leaves audio unchanged' qualifier clarifying scope. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like set_word_suppressed_tool, apply_bleed_suppression_tool, or low_audibility_words_tool (which presumably detects rather than applies).

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 only usage hint is that suppression can be limited to a ``words`` list. There is no statement of when to use this instead of low_audibility_words_tool, set_word_suppressed_tool, or apply_bleed_suppression_tool, and no prerequisite (e.g. must detection/analysis have run first).

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