speaker_split_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: dry_run defaults on, 'One undo step' (reversibility), how enrollment is used, and how flagged crosstalk is routed in each mode. It still omits what happens to the source track/lanes and any permission or failure conditions.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the dry_run default, then layered detail. The parenthetical backtick labels are a bit noisy, but every sentence adds operational information and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the core workflow: speaker count source, enrollment semantics, crosstalk routing, and undo behavior. The unexplained room_tone_fill flag and project_path leave minor gaps for an 8-parameter, annotation-free tool.

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 compensate. It meaningfully explains enrollment, speaker_count, crosstalk_mode's three options, and dry_run's default, but says nothing about project_path, room_tone_fill, or track_id, leaving several parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Split a one-track recording of several speakers into a lane per speaker.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling speaker_set_count_tool by pointing at it for the speaker count dependency.

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?

Gives the prerequisite ('Needs the speaker count (or one set with speaker_set_count_tool)') and explains when enrollment applies ('for some or all speakers; the rest are clustered'). It does not state when not to use this split versus speaker_gate_track_tool or mute_off_speaker_tool, both adjacent siblings.

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