export_audio

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing side effects and constraints: it temporarily sets the arrangement loop to the range and restores it afterwards, the format/render settings follow the Export dialog's last state, it never overwrites a file, and it requires macOS UI automation permission. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before invoking a UI-driven export.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, with constraints following. It is somewhat dense across several lines, but nearly every clause carries operative information rather than filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description never states what a successful call returns (e.g., the written file path or a confirmation), which matters given the 'never overwrites' behavior implies failure modes. Everything else needed to call the tool correctly — range semantics, permission requirement, alternative tool — is present.

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, and it largely does: it explains that `start`/`end` accept beats or "bar.beat.sixteenth" notation and that `path` is a ".wav" destination. It stops short of saying whether the path must be absolute or whether parent directories are created, so it is not fully compensating.

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 ('Render the arrangement ... with Live's own offline File > Export Audio/Video, to `path`') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling bounce tool. An agent can identify both the action and its mechanism without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Prefer bounce, which needs no UI permission,' and states the prerequisite 'Needs macOS UI automation (see get_status).' Both the when-to-use and the when-to-prefer-an-alternative conditions are given.

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