auto_cleanup_live

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses async behavior ('runs in background — returns a job_id immediately'), specific processing parameters (12dB noise reduction, 5:1 compression), concurrency constraints, and safety limits ('max safe level before artifacts appear'). Excellent behavioral coverage.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. Structure is logical: header summary → mechanism explanation → pipeline details → design intent → critical constraints → concurrency warning. No redundancy or filler text despite being multi-line.

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 a complex audio processing pipeline with no output schema, description is complete: explains return value (job_id), monitoring mechanism (check_pipeline_status), processing chain, input requirements (0.5s room tone), and concurrency limitations. No gaps remain for agent operation.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters, establishing baseline 4. Description adds value by documenting the implicit processing parameters (12dB reduction, 5:1 compression, 100Hz HPF) that are hardcoded in the pipeline, helping users understand what the tool will do to their audio despite no input arguments.

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?

Excellent specificity: 'ONE-CLICK LIVE RECORDING CLEANUP' provides clear verb+resource, while 'Aggressive processing for noisy/field recordings' distinguishes from sibling tools like auto_cleanup_podcast or auto_cleanup_vocal. The specific pipeline chain (DC offset > HPF 100Hz > etc.) further clarifies scope.

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?

Explicit when-not guidance: 'DO NOT call this again if a pipeline is already running — use check_pipeline_status instead.' Also includes prerequisites ('first 0.5 seconds MUST be room tone') and monitoring instructions. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'live performances, field recordings, and noisy environments' vs other cleanup variants.

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