auto_cleanup_live

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals: background execution, job_id return, pipeline steps, noise reduction level, and the requirement for first 0.5 seconds of room tone. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is destructive or modifies the original file, though it implies processing. A slight improvement would be to mention side effects on original audio.

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 well-structured with a bolded header, pipeline list, design note, parameter description, and important notes. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. While every sentence adds value, it is slightly longer than necessary, but still efficient.

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 only one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thorough. It explains the pipeline, usage constraints (room tone, concurrency), monitoring via sibling tool, and parameter trade-offs. An agent has sufficient information to invoke it correctly.

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 sole parameter 'verify' is fully explained: 'Measure the audio before and after and report what changed. Costs two extra exports. Set False on very long projects.' Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds complete meaning beyond the schema's type definition.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'ONE-CLICK LIVE RECORDING CLEANUP: Aggressive processing for noisy/field recordings.' It specifies the resource (live recordings) and distinguishes from siblings like auto_cleanup_podcast or auto_cleanup_vocal by targeting 'live' and 'field' recordings.

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 description provides explicit instructions: 'Runs in background — returns a job_id immediately. Use check_pipeline_status to monitor.' It advises against calling again if a pipeline is already running, and states it is 'Designed for live performances, field recordings, and noisy environments.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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