auto_master_music

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: discloses async background execution, immediate job_id return, detailed 6-step pipeline breakdown (including specific filter behaviors), and safety constraints ('only reduces peaks if too hot, never boosts'). No contradictions with annotations.

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-organized with clear visual hierarchy: one-line summary, background behavior note, numbered pipeline steps, Args section, and warning. Every sentence provides unique value; no tautology or repetition of tool name. Technical details are front-loaded appropriately.

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 complex async pipeline with no output schema, description adequately explains monitoring via check_pipeline_status and pipeline stages. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly state output file behavior (whether it overwrites source or creates new file) or return value structure beyond 'job_id'.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description compensates well by listing valid enum values for style ('edm', 'hiphop', 'rock', 'acoustic', 'pop', 'classical') and explaining noise_reduce purpose ('Apply gentle noise reduction'). Defaults are specified. Minor gap: doesn't explain parameter constraints (case sensitivity, implications of style choice on specific processing).

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?

Description explicitly states 'Professionally master your music track with genre-tuned settings' with specific verb (master), resource (music track), and modifier (genre-tuned). The 'ONE-CLICK' framing and detailed pipeline steps clearly distinguish this from sibling manual effect tools (compressor, limiter) and other auto_* cleanup tools.

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 concurrency constraint: 'DO NOT call this again if a pipeline is already running — use check_pipeline_status instead.' Also clarifies async pattern: 'Runs in background — returns a job_id immediately. Use check_pipeline_status to monitor.' This directly names the alternative tool and when to use it.

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