edit_save_stem

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it saves a 'copy' which implies non-destructive behavior, but does not mention potential side effects, file overwrite behavior, or whether the current Edit is modified. This is adequate but not highly transparent.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and usage guidance. It is concise, easy to parse, and contains no redundant information.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and usage scenario, and mentions two of the three parameters. However, it omits essential details about the required out_path parameter and the relationship between track_ids and track_names, so it is not fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The description explains track_ids and track_names as lists for selecting audible tracks, but does not explain out_path, which is the only required parameter. It also leaves ambiguous whether track_ids and track_names are mutually exclusive or can be combined. This is a significant gap given 0% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool saves a stem-mix copy of the current Edit with only named tracks audible, and explicitly mentions using track_ids or track_names. It also provides a specific use case (loop for per-track stems) which distinguishes it from related save/render tools.

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 gives a clear when-to-use instruction ('Use in a loop to produce per-track stems for rendering') and identifies the key parameters. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like edit_save or render_stems, so some inference is still needed.

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