Compare presets on 24 seconds

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-destructive, but the description adds useful behavioral context: it previews only the middle 24 seconds, returns loudness and a listen link per preset, is free, and has a 6-per-day cap. It does not mention link expiration or persistence, but there is no contradiction with the 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core action and outcome. The FREE/limit note and usage guidance are useful. The verb 'Master' is slightly ambiguous compared to the title's 'Compare,' but there is no wasted text.

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 two-parameter preview tool with an output schema and non-destructive annotations, the description is practically complete. It covers the action, scope, quota, output highlights, and usage rationale. It could mention style key sourcing more explicitly, but the schema already points to list_presets.

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 100%, so the schema already documents audio_url and styles. The description reinforces that styles should be 2-6 presets and that each produces loudness and a link, but it does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 precise action and resource: 'Master the middle 24 s of the track in 2-6 presets at once and get each one's loudness plus a listen link.' This clearly identifies a preview/compare workflow and distinguishes it from siblings like master_track or list_presets.

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 description explicitly says to use this tool 'instead of guessing a preset' and 'instead of burning a token to try one,' which gives clear selection context. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or cover when another tool like batch_master would be better, but the intended usage is clear enough.

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