gaudio-developers-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses async polling behavior ('poll until done'), 72-hour uploadId validity, and return of download URLs. Does not disclose error handling, cancellation behavior, or rate limits.

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?

Four dense sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded workflow diagram (arrows), followed by conditional parameter guidance and format support. Every clause earns its place.

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 an async polling tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, description adequately covers returns (download URLs) and lifecycle. Could improve by mentioning possible error states job statuses or timeout behavior.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3). Description adds significant domain context: file format support (WAV/MP4 etc. not in schema), Stem vs DME model semantics for 'type' parameter, and uploadId reuse workflow. Exceeds baseline meaningfully.

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?

Clear verb+resource (audio separation) and workflow (upload→job→poll→URLs). 'All-in-one' effectively distinguishes from granular siblings (gaudio_upload_file, gaudio_create_job, gaudio_get_job) without explicitly naming them, though explicit comparison would strengthen differentiation.

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?

Provides clear conditional logic: when to provide 'type' (Stem Separation) vs omit it (DME), and when to use uploadId vs filePath. Supported formats are listed. Lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' sibling comparisons.

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