auto_cleanup_live

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it reveals the tool runs in the background and returns a job_id immediately. It also discloses the exact processing pipeline, including that noise reduction is always on, and warns about the mandatory room-tone requirement for the first 0.5 seconds.

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 information-dense and well-organized, with the pipeline laid out in a readable sequence and the critical warning marked IMPORTANT. There is minor redundancy between 'noisy/field recordings' and 'live performances, field recordings, and noisy environments,' but no meaningful fluff.

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?

It covers async behavior, monitoring, pipeline, and the room-tone prerequisite well. The main gap is that it never states what the tool actually operates on—current selection, active clip, or whole project—which matters since the tool takes no parameters. This leaves a meaningful assumption for the agent.

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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document and baseline 4 applies. The room-tone requirement is a usage precondition rather than a parameter, but the description handles it clearly even though it doesn't add parameter-specific detail.

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 identifies a specialized cleanup action for live/noisy recordings, with 'aggressive processing' and a detailed pipeline. It distinguishes itself from sibling cleanup tools like auto_cleanup_podcast, auto_cleanup_interview, and auto_cleanup_vocal by targeting live performances 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?

It explicitly states the intended use cases: live performances, field recordings, and noisy environments. It also tells the agent to monitor progress with check_pipeline_status. However, it doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of fully explicit routing guidance.

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