project_export_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the format-by-extension behavior, the mandatory user-notification, the home-folder prohibition, and the num_channels semantics. It also implies the tool may delegate to get_default_export_folder. This is thorough and honest about side effects and constraints.

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 longer than average but each section serves a purpose: the primary action, mandatory user-facing behavior, and param details. The mandatory note is front-loaded, and the argument list is clear. It is not verbose; every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tightened by moving the home-folder exceptions into a single bulleted list without losing clarity.

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, this description is complete. It covers the parameters, format determination, folder selection logic, and a cross-reference to a sibling helper (get_default_export_folder). The agent can invoke it correctly without missing critical information. Error handling is not required for completeness here.

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%, so the description fully compensates. 'path' is explained as an absolute path with extension-based format mapping; 'num_channels' is explained with explicit mono/stereo mapping and a default. This gives agents everything they need beyond the raw schema names.

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 states a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('project audio') with a clear output (a file). It distinguishes itself from siblings like raw_export_audio by specifying 'project' audio, implying the whole project mix rather than raw clips. This is unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use instructions: always tell the user the save location, never save to the home folder, and call get_default_export_folder when no path is given. It clearly states acceptable locations and exclusions. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like raw_export_audio, so it lacks a full when-not-to-use statement.

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