producer_swap_instrumentals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the core behavior (combining vocals and instrumentals) and mentions the return of a Task ID, hinting at asynchronous processing. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether original files are modified), error conditions, or authorization requirements. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise (~80 words) and well-structured: a one-line summary, process explanation, usage scenarios, and return information. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the key action.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (audio swapping with potential async callback) and the absence of annotations, the description covers the main purpose, usage scenarios, and basic behavior. It mentions the return of a Task ID, implying asynchronous execution. However, it lacks details on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., audio formats), or behavior when the swap fails. An output schema exists but is not shown, so return value details are partially covered. Overall, it is fairly complete for a creative tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing baseline clarity. The description adds meaningful context for the two main parameters ('audio_id' and 'swap_audio_id') by explaining their roles in the swapping process. For 'callback_url', it does not add beyond the schema. Overall, the description enriches understanding of parameter usage.

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 clearly states the action ('Swap the instrumental track of one song with instrumentals from another') and explains the process ('Takes the vocals from the base audio and combines them with the instrumental track from the swap audio'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'producer_swap_vocals' by specifying it swaps instrumentals, not vocals.

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 includes a 'Use this when:' section with three specific scenarios (combine instrumentals from one song with vocals from another, hear same vocals over different music, create instrumental mashup). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the context signals (sibling tools like 'producer_swap_vocals') imply the tool's specific domain.

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