start_speaker_separation

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent operation, but the description adds no behavioral context such as whether it starts an async job, what permissions are needed, or what the result contains. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also adds no value beyond 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?

The description is a single short phrase, which is concise but severely under-specified. It is not wasteful, but it lacks any structure or front-loaded useful information beyond the title.

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 tool with two required parameters, no output schema, and only partial annotation coverage of behavior, the description is too thin. It omits what speaker separation produces, whether it is asynchronous, and how results are retrieved, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 100% and both parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already does the work.

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 simply repeats the tool name and title, 'Start Speaker Separation,' adding no specific verb-resource detail beyond the name itself. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as separate_song_stems, audio_isolation, or create_speaker.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The title implies a general purpose, but there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling routing hints.

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