Render Section Preview or Loudness-Matched A/B

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds that it never selects a winner, but does not disclose side effects like file creation or state changes. Adequate but not enriched.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary actions and adds a critical behavioral note. No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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?

Despite 20 parameters and an output schema, the description remains very brief. It does not cover different action types, output formats, or prerequisites for using the tool, making it incomplete for a complex tool.

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?

With 45% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not explain individual parameters. It hints at the 'action' enum via the description but offers no details on match_lufs, audition_layer, etc. The schema carries most of the burden.

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 title and description clearly state the tool's actions: rendering section previews, anchor previews, and loudness-matched A/B evidence. It explicitly distinguishes itself by stating 'this tool never chooses a winner,' setting clear expectations.

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 implies usage for preview and comparison but does not specify when to use this tool over siblings like vocaloid_render_stem_mix or vocaloid_render_manifest_master. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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