auto_lofi_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses async behavior, immediate job_id return, the exact pipeline stages, and a current limitation (warmth + compression only), which is far more transparent than a typical effect description. It is silent on whether the source audio is modified destructively, but the disclosed async behavior and job_id semantics partially mitigate that.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and each section (pipeline, note, args) adds distinct value. The v3 reference is slightly internal/historical but it still informs the agent about capability and directs attention to the result note field. No filler to speak of.

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 one-parameter async tool with no output schema, it explains job_id return value, monitoring via check_pipeline_status, pipeline stages, parameter choices, and known limitations. It does not explicitly state what audio is targeted (e.g., selected clip vs entire track), but the core call-and-monitor sequence is sufficiently complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and no enums, so the description compensates by defining the three intensity values ('light', 'medium', 'heavy') with meaningful audio-quality descriptions and the default. This fully documents the only parameter and gives an agent the exact vocabulary needed to call the tool correctly.

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?

States a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('audio') with a distinctive 'vintage/lo-fi' scope that separates it from sibling effect tools like compressor or bass_and_treble. The creative-lo-fi label is unambiguous and instantly tells an agent what the tool is for.

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?

Explicitly describes the async workflow ('Runs in background - returns a job_id immediately. Use check_pipeline_status to monitor'), giving clear context on how to use the result. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with individual effect siblings, but the named pipeline conveys that this is an all-in-one creative effect rather than a single processor.

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