Remove Suno/Udio AI fingerprint

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is asynchronous ('Returns a job id — poll get_job'), free, and non-destructive to loudness/tone. Annotations only provide readOnly=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false, so the description meaningfully supplements them.

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 deliver the core behavior, constraints, cost, and result-handling instruction with zero filler. Every sentence earns its place and the most important distinction ('without mastering') is front-loaded.

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 an async job-submission tool, the description covers the action, scope, side effects, cost, and how to obtain the result. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's job, and the schema covers parameter constraints. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 input schema already describes audio_url and sensitivity with 67% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add detail about out_format or how sensitivity behaves, but the schema's enum and range descriptions largely carry the parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Strip') and resource ('AI generator fingerprint'), and clearly differentiates the tool from mastering by stating 'without mastering; loudness and tone stay as they are.' This makes it distinct from sibling master_track without needing to inspect schemas.

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 phrase 'without mastering' gives clear contextual guidance that this tool is for fingerprint removal while preserving loudness and tone, which implies when to choose it over a mastering alternative. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for appropriate selection.

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