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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing what is baked into the render (effects, fader, pan, ducking), what is explicitly excluded (master EQ/compressor/limiter and loudness normalisation), how files are aligned (all start at sequence start, equal length), and the delivery artifacts (single zip with stems.json and LIESMICH.txt). It also confirms the operation is non-destructive to the mix and costs nothing, consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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 and output contents are front-loaded, then constraints, then workflow. It is long, but nearly every sentence carries operational detail an agent needs (format, sample rate, alignment, exclusions, job polling). Slightly dense with parenthetical asides, but 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?

With no output schema, the description itself explains the return entirely: one zip, its contents, the metadata manifest, and where the URL appears in the job result. For a background-job export with a single param, this is complete enough to call and consume correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter (seq_id) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents it. The description implies scope ('every stem of the sequence') but adds no format or syntactic detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 and resource (export the sequence's sound stems) and enumerates exactly what is produced: dialog/music/sfx/atmo stems at 24-bit/48kHz plus an M&E file. It also distinguishes itself from the picture sibling lab_schnitt_export, so an agent can separate the audio handover from the shoot/picture handover.

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?

Gives explicit context ('hand the sound over to whoever mixes next'), names the mechanism to use it (background job, poll lab_get_job, read stems_zip_url from job.result), and states the prerequisite (needs bound stems via lab_bind_audio) and the alternative for non-audio delivery (lab_schnitt_export). Nothing is left to inference.

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