Export

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It usefully discloses that gain, pan, mute, solo and envelopes are applied to the render and that selection is explicit, but it says nothing about overwriting an existing file, failure modes, or disk/length side effects despite the destructive hint.

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?

Two dense sentences that lead with the core action and format resolution, then add selection and channel behavior. Every clause carries information, though the trailing 'including after label editing' clause is terse enough to be slightly opaque.

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 not be described, and the description covers the essential inputs and render semantics. The remaining gaps — time units and overwrite behavior — are modest but relevant for a write-to-disk tool with 0% schema coverage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage this description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: the format is derived from the file extension, start/end define an explicit time range, and channels is constrained to 1 or 2. It falls short of 5 because it never states the units/timebase for start and end (seconds, bounded at 86400).

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 pairs the verb 'Export' with a concrete resource ('the rendered mix or an explicit time range') and lists the supported output formats. It distinguishes itself from label/measurement siblings by making clear this writes audio, but it never names an alternative tool to reinforce the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for producing an audio file from the current mix or a slice of it. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as label-region or batch export, leaving tool selection partly to inference.

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