click_removal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the operation and scoping ('from the selected audio') and explains how threshold and spike_width affect detection, but it does not disclose whether the edit is destructive, reversible, or whether a selection is strictly required before invocation.

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 compact and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by a minimal, well-structured Args block. Every line provides useful information, with no filler.

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 two-parameter effect tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the operation, scope, parameter ranges, defaults, and parameter effects. It could be slightly more complete by noting what happens if no audio is selected or whether the operation modifies the clip in place, but as a simple effect it is largely sufficient.

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%, yet the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, valid range, and default: threshold (0-900, higher = fewer clicks removed) and spike_width (0-40, maximum click width). This goes well beyond the bare schema properties.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Remove clicks and pops from the selected audio', which is clear and actionable. It also gives a helpful example context ('vinyl recordings'), though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling repair/cleanup tools like effect_repair or auto_cleanup_audio.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used when clicks or pops are present in selected audio, but it does not state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives. There is no explicit routing guidance among the many sibling cleanup/effect tools, so the usage context is only implied.

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