label_export_audio_segments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: point labels are skipped, existing files are never overwritten (skipped and reported), performance warning, and an honest note about not being live-tested. These are critical behavioral traits for an agent.

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?

Well-structured with a one-line purpose, then behavioral notes, then an Args section. Every sentence adds value; the front-loaded main action and essential caveats make it efficient.

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?

For a file-export tool with no output schema, the description covers key behaviors and parameters. It does not describe the return value (what 'reported' means exactly), but this is minor given the detailed behavioral info. Overall sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, yet the description fully explains all three parameters: directory (absolute path), format (lists options and default), and num_channels (meaning and default). This compensates completely for the missing schema descriptions.

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: 'Export the audio under each label as its own file.' Clearly distinguishes from siblings like label_export and label_export_chapters by focusing on audio segments.

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?

Provides clear context (splitting a long recording into per-segment audio) and a critical prerequisite: 'ALWAYS tell the user which directory the files will be written to BEFORE calling this.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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