Round-trip a project through FamiStudio

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds context about the internal steps (re-export, render WAV) and the reporting behavior, which is useful beyond the annotations. But it doesn't disclose side effects like temporary file creation or whether the project is modified, so it only partially fills the behavioral gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a usage cue. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. The structure is efficient and scannable.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is far from complete. It omits all parameter semantics, the return format, and the meaning of 'expected length'. An agent would have to guess or look elsewhere to call this tool correctly. This is a serious deficiency for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and the description mentions none of the six parameters (project, workDir, projectPath, renderAudio, durationSeconds, expectDurationSeconds). An agent cannot infer what these mean or how to set them from the description, which is a severe gap given the absence of any schema-level documentation.

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 states a specific, high-level purpose: an end-to-end validity check that re-exports to FamiStudio text, renders a WAV, and reports on clean loading and expected audio length. This clearly distinguishes it from simpler siblings like export_text or export_audio, and the instruction 'Run this after generating a .fms file' ties it to a concrete workflow.

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 a clear temporal cue ('Run this after generating a .fms file') that tells the agent when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity relative to siblings like validate_fms or diff_fms. The usage context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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