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

Discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the operation can return either a completed result or an asynchronous job_id to poll, the returned stems are public downloadable .m4a files, and the account-origin restriction. The annotations already mark it as non-read-only and non-idempotent, and the description adds the important async and output details without contradicting them.

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?

Every sentence earns its place, covering input origin, account scope, response shape, polling behavior, output format, and a concrete agent instruction. The description is dense yet compact and front-loads the core purpose.

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 single-parameter async operation with no output schema, the description explains the full lifecycle: where the clip comes from, what the response looks like in both completed and pending cases, how to download results, and what to do with them. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single parameter. It fully explains clip_id: where it comes from, what kind of clip is valid, and the account restriction. This is more informative than the bare schema field.

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 action ('Split a track we generated into stems') and names the resource type, with an explicit pointer to where the input clip_id comes from (music_generate or music_video). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling music tools like music_download and music_get.

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 clear contextual guidance: the input must come from a previously generated track, and the operation is tied to the same account. It does not enumerate explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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