Split stems

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety/mutation profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond echoing the optional retime/rekey parameters; it omits what happens to the source file, whether output stems are written to disk, and where results surface. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, the description contributes minimal extra context.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it spends its one clause on optional modifiers rather than routing or prerequisite information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a non-idempotent, open-world, file-consuming tool with five parameters, the description says nothing about where stems are produced or how the agent retrieves them (e.g., via list_results), leaving a meaningful operational gap.

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 all five parameters (stems list, algorithm, file_path, target_bpm, target_key) are already documented with defaults and formats in the schema. The description only paraphrases target_bpm/target_key and adds no syntax or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('split a track into separate instrument stems') with an added capability note ('retimed and rekeyed'). It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from siblings like segment, analyze, or master, which could overlap in the audio-processing family.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing tells the agent when to prefer stem_split over segment, analyze, or master, nor any prerequisites (source file requirements, expected runtime, whether results need list_results). The optional retime/rekey behavior is mentioned but not framed as a decision criterion.

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