producer_swap_instrumentals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the process (combining vocals and instrumentals) and states the return value (Task ID and swapped audio info). It does not mention async behavior explicitly, but the callback_url parameter hints at it. Overall, it provides adequate transparency for a tool with no annotations.

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 and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then elaborates with a list of use cases and a return description. Every sentence is meaningful and contributes to understanding, with no unnecessary fluff.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and the parameter schema covering all inputs, the description is largely complete. It explains the return type (Task ID and swapped info) and the basic process. However, it could briefly mention the asynchronous nature implied by the callback_url parameter to be fully self-contained.

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 three parameters have schema descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the roles of the two audio IDs in terms of 'vocals' and 'instrumentals,' which goes beyond the schema definitions. This extra context aids correct 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 tool's function: swapping instrumentals between songs. It uses specific verbs ('swap', 'combines') and identifies the resources ('instrumental track', 'vocals'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'producer_swap_vocals' by focusing on instrumentals.

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 provides three explicit use cases under 'Use this when:', offering clear guidance on appropriate scenarios. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, the context effectively implies when this tool is suitable.

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