agent_export_preview

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, non-destructive profile, and the description adds two useful caveats: bounded job waiting and no guarantee of audible content. However, 'bounded job waiting' is undefined (no timeout value, no behavior on exceeding the bound) and there is no explanation of what the preview produces or where it writes, so the added transparency is partial.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key scoping constraint leads. The phrase 'bounded job waiting' is slightly jargon-heavy for the amount of information it conveys, but overall it is 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 four-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It does not say what the preview returns (job handle, paths, status), how path/folder are used, or what 'bounded' waiting means, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it without guessing.

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 must carry the parameter burden. It only partially does: 'explicit beat range' covers start_beat/end_beat, but the path and folder parameters are never explained, leaving half the inputs undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Preview render/stems') plus a scoping detail ('explicit beat range'), so the core action is clear. It never contrasts itself with the many adjacent tools (export_render, export_stems, agent_preview, agent_loop_preview, agent_midi_preview), leaving the agent to guess which preview/export variant to pick.

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 word 'Preview' hints at a pre-commit check, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent how this differs from export_render/export_stems or from the other agent preview tools, so selection among them is left to inference.

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