Render to WAV

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavior: 24-bit WAV output, returns path and size, renders headlessly with no dialog. It doesn't mention overwrite behavior or whether rendering requires a saved project, but the disclosed traits are the most decision-relevant ones.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the key option, then the return value. Every sentence adds information.

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 simple write-to-disk tool with 0 required params and full schema coverage, the description covers what it does, how bounds work, the return value, and a headless behavior caveat. Not mentioning overwrite semantics is a minor gap, not a blocker.

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 coverage is 100%: both parameters have descriptions and bounds has an enum plus default. The description adds the concrete 'set bounds="project"' example, which is helpful but not necessary. Baseline 3 is fair because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description names a specific verb+resource: 'Render (bounce) the project master to a 24-bit WAV file on disk.' It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like reaper_get_project_state or reaper_add_track, and the parenthetical 'bounce' reinforces the DAW-specific meaning.

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?

States the default behavior (renders time selection) and the exact way to switch to whole-project rendering ('set bounds='project''). It does not name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the tool's purpose is specific enough that little else is needed.

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