noise_reduction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the prerequisite but not whether the operation is destructive/reversible, how it affects the selected clip, what errors occur if no profile or selection exists, or what the tool returns. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that modifies audio.

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: one prerequisite sentence and a short parameter list, with no filler. The critical workflow is front-loaded before parameter details.

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?

The prerequisite and parameter ranges make the tool callable, but the absence of any output-schema or behavioral notes leaves gaps around side effects, success/failure signals, and selection requirements beyond 'selected audio'. It is adequate but not fully self-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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description supplies meaning for all three parameters, including value ranges and defaults (sensitivity 0.01–24, noise_gain_db 0–48, frequency_smoothing_bands 0–12). This fully compensates for the schema's bare titles/defaults.

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 concrete verb ('Apply') and resource ('noise reduction' to the selected audio), and clarifies that it is the application step after get_noise_profile. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling cleanup effects like click_removal or auto_cleanup_audio, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 an explicit ordered workflow: call get_noise_profile on pure noise first, select the audio, then call this tool. This gives clear context for invocation. It does not state when to prefer this over similar cleanup/effect tools, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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