Master a track

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

Adds concrete operational context beyond the annotations: it takes a few minutes, counts as one run, writes to a new results folder, and leaves the source unchanged. This is exactly the kind of cost, side-effect, and output-location detail an agent needs before invoking a non-readonly, open-world operation.

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?

Front-loads the core action and follows with tightly scoped usage, reference, duration, and output notes. Every sentence contributes and there is no repetition of schema or annotation data.

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 output schema, annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies the remaining operational facts an agent needs: stereo-mix suitability, reference behavior, runtime, run accounting, and output location. Nothing important is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds a useful heuristic for reference_file ('when the user names one') but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Master a mix') and adds the optional reference-matching scope. It explicitly distinguishes the tool from the sibling stem_split by saying it is for a finished stereo mix, not separate stems.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance ('finished stereo mix'), a when-not condition ('not for separate stems'), and a conditional parameter rule ('Pass a reference track when the user names one'). The exclusion effectively routes the agent away from stem splitting.

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