resolve_clear_audio_classification

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the scope (clip or folder recursively) but does not state whether the operation is destructive, reversible, requires permissions, or has any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence that directly states the core functionality and scope. It is concise and front-loaded with the action, with no unnecessary detail. It could be slightly more structured to clarify parameter usage, but it is efficient overall.

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 simplicity (two optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic intent but lacks details on parameter interaction and edge cases (e.g., both params empty, which folder is 'current'). It is minimally adequate but not complete enough to guarantee correct invocation without additional context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'one clip' and 'current/specified folder' which roughly map to clip_name and folder_path, but it does not explain parameter precedence, what happens if both are empty, or how the 'current' folder is determined. The mapping is partial and leaves ambiguity.

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 clear action (Remove audio classification) and specifies the target scope: one clip or a folder including nested folders. It distinguishes between these two modes, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like resolve_clear_transcription or resolve_classify_audio, which could be confused in intent.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when classification removal is appropriate, nor does it exclude cases where other tools (e.g., resolve_clear_transcription) would be better. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'remove', leaving the agent to infer.

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