producer_swap_instrumentals

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It clearly states that 'Takes the vocals from the base audio and combines them with the instrumental track from the swap audio,' and it notes that it returns a Task ID and swapped audio information, implying an asynchronous, non-destructive operation. It does not mention side effects, auth, or rate limits, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The three bullet points under 'Use this when:' are direct and useful, and the 'Returns' line is concise. No filler sentences exist.

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 tool has output schema and full parameter descriptions, so the description can focus on behavior and usage. It covers the main operation, use cases, and return value. It could mention async/callback behavior more explicitly, but those are already present in the schema.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the relationship between audio_id and swap_audio_id but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides for async or callback_url.

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 opens with 'Swap the instrumental track of one song with instrumentals from another,' which uses a specific verb and resource. It also clarifies that it keeps vocals from the base audio and uses instrumentals from the swap audio, distinguishing it from related tools like producer_swap_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 concrete scenarios: combining instrumentals from one song with vocals from another, hearing the same vocals over different music, and creating an instrumental mashup. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of the highest score.

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