Export a project to WAV/MP3/OGG

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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavioral context by naming the external dependency and summarizing the return payload (artifact path, duration, peak level, audibility check for WAV). No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler: purpose first, then prerequisite, then return summary. Every sentence earns its place and the most important scoping information is 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?

For a 10-parameter tool with 10% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify parameter relationships, defaults, or how to specify the project, leaving an agent to guess at correct invocation.

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 only 10%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain most of the 10 parameters such as rate, songs, loopCount, channelMask, project vs projectPath, durationSeconds, or separateChannels. It only hints at formats via the title and WAV-specific return info.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('FamiStudio project') and clearly identifies the output as an audio file, matching the title's WAV/MP3/OGG scope. It is easily distinguished from siblings like export_text or create_fms.

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?

It gives an actionable prerequisite: FamiStudio 4.5.x must be installed, and it tells the agent to call famistudio_info first if unsure. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as run_famistudio or analyze_audio, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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