auto_cleanup_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that the operation runs in the background, returns a job_id immediately, and should be monitored via check_pipeline_status. It also reveals the processing order and explicitly states what the tool will NOT do to the audio. This is well beyond minimal disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the key promise, then gives usage context, runtime behavior, pipeline, and exclusions before detailing parameters. Every sentence earns its place; the all-caps exclusion line is emphatic but compact. It avoids redundancy despite covering a lot.

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 background, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: async behavior, monitoring method, pipeline order, parameter semantics, and the essential precondition about audio levels and the first 0.5s noise profile. Nothing critical is missing.

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 fully compensates. Both parameters are explained with behavior, defaults, and practical caveats—e.g., remove_noise's 'first 0.5s should be room tone/silence' warning. This adds meaning far beyond the bare boolean schema.

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 specific action ('Remove noise and artifacts') with a clear scope ('WITHOUT changing loudness or dynamics'), and the 'SAFE CLEANUP' framing distinguishes it from sibling mastering tools like auto_master_music or loudness_normalize. The pipeline breakdown (DC offset removal, noise reduction, click removal) adds further precision.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when audio levels are already good and you just want to clean it up.' It also gives when-not guidance via 'NO compression, NO normalize, NO LUFS. Just clean.' However, it does not name a specific alternative tool for cases where loudness/dynamics adjustments are needed, leaving the agent to infer that from the sibling list.

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