bounce_audio_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the output destination and mastering bypass, but does not disclose side effects, whether files are overwritten, whether the operation is asynchronous, or what happens in failure cases. 'Bounce' implies writing files, but the behavior remains under-specified.

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 the core action front-loaded and parameter guidance packed into the remaining sentences. No filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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?

Input parameter semantics are well covered, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is not needed. However, the description lacks operational context such as file-overwrite behavior, asynchronous status, and differentiation from related export/render sibling tools, leaving a moderate completeness gap.

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 compensates well: start_s/end_s are defined as timeline seconds, track_ids_json is explained as a JSON string array or omitted for all non-muted mixable tracks, and formats_json is described as a JSON array of extensions with a default. Only project_path is not explicitly described, but its role is self-evident from the name and required status.

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?

States the specific verb 'Bounce', the resource ('selected (or all) stems'), the destination ('export/bounces/'), and the qualifier 'without mastering'. This clearly identifies what the tool does and separates it from broader export/render tools.

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 intended use is implied by the destination and 'without mastering' qualifier, and parameter behaviors are explained. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with related siblings such as export_audio_tool, render_preview, or render_final, so an agent is left to infer when this is the right choice.

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