producer_swap_vocals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the operational logic (instrumental from base + vocal from swap) and states the return value (Task ID and swapped audio info). However, it omits side effects like whether original files are modified, permission requirements, or async behavior details, which are only partially covered by the schema.

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 well-structured with a short intro, a process explanation, a bulleted use-case list, and a returns section. It avoids redundancy and every section serves a purpose, making it efficient at roughly 70 words.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core operation, use cases, and returns. The sibling tool producer_swap_instrumentals provides a nearby alternative, but the description's specificity adequately differentiates it, though it could mention prerequisites like audio uploads.

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 already has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, including clear definitions for audio_id and swap_audio_id. The description reinforces the parameter roles with the instrumental/vocal explanation but adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 vocals of one song with vocals from another song,' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It further clarifies by explaining the instrumental/vocal combination, distinguishing it from sibling tool producer_swap_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 'Use this when' section lists three concrete scenarios, providing clear context for when to apply the tool. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use cases are specific enough to guide selection.

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