Separate Stems from SoundCloud

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the server fetches, separates, and returns local file paths, and mentions quality and format. However, it does not disclose key behaviors: the 'wait' parameter's effect (whether the call is synchronous or asynchronous), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 two sentences long with no redundant information. The first sentence delivers the core action and output, the second states usage scope. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main flow (fetch, separate, return paths) and output format. However, it omits details about async behavior (when 'wait' is false), timeout/interval semantics, possible error states, and how this tool relates to sibling tools like 'separate_stems'.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all 5 parameters (e.g., URL formats, wait behavior, output directory defaults). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses specific verbs ('submit', 'fetches', 'separates') and identifies the resource (SoundCloud track URL) and output (vocals and instrumental MP3 files). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'separate_youtube' by specifying SoundCloud-only URLs.

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 explicitly states 'Use this for any soundcloud.com URL', which is direct guidance. However, it lacks information on when not to use this tool or mention of alternative tools (e.g., 'separate_stems' for non-URL sources), and no prerequisites or context beyond URL handling.

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