auto_cleanup_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses: async behavior ('returns a job_id immediately'), pipeline stages (DC offset > HPF > noise reduction > click removal), safety profile ('SAFE CLEANUP'), and side-effect constraints. Minor gap on error handling or idempotency details.

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?

Well-structured with clear visual hierarchy (caps for emphasis, 'Pipeline:' and 'Args:' sections). Information is front-loaded with safety and scope. Slightly verbose formatting but every sentence provides necessary context for an async pipeline tool.

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?

Comprehensive for a 2-parameter async pipeline tool. Covers input requirements, pipeline logic, return value (job_id), monitoring mechanism, and constraints. No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains the immediate return value and background processing behavior.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting both boolean parameters with semantic meaning ('Apply noise reduction using first 0.5s as noise profile', 'Remove clicks/pops'), default values, and critical usage constraints linking the two parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Remove[s] noise and artifacts WITHOUT changing loudness or dynamics' and distinguishes itself from siblings with 'NO compression, NO normalize, NO LUFS' and contrasting pipeline details versus manual tools like noise_reduction or click_removal.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('when audio levels are already good'), prerequisites ('first 0.5 seconds should be room tone / silence'), and explicit alternative for monitoring ('use check_pipeline_status instead'). Also warns 'DO NOT call this again if a pipeline is already running'.

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