set_export_range

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 states the tool sets a range for export but doesn't clarify whether this is a configuration change, if it affects existing exports, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like modifying project data. The mention of 'Returns: Confirmation with time info' adds some context but is vague.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns, making it efficient and easy to parse. However, the 'Returns' section is somewhat vague ('Confirmation with time info'), which slightly reduces clarity without adding unnecessary length.

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 has an output schema (which should detail the return values), the description doesn't need to fully explain returns. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and 2 parameters, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, permissions) and usage context, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps in guiding the agent.

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 description explicitly lists the two parameters ('start_beats' and 'length_beats') and provides basic semantic meaning ('Start position in beats', 'Length in beats'), which adds value beyond the input schema's 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't explain units, valid ranges, or how these parameters interact with the export process, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('loop/punch range for export'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'export_selected_track' or 'prepare_track_for_export', which might have overlapping export-related functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., whether a track must be selected first), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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