render_stems

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly discloses that the tool is not implemented, which is essential behavioral information, but it says nothing about failure behavior, side effects, or required project state.

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 two short sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the critical 'NOT YET IMPLEMENTED' status is immediately included, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose and unavailability. However, the meaning of the required 'out_dir' parameter is left undocumented, and there is no guidance on how the tool would behave even hypothetically.

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 schema provides no description for the required 'out_dir' parameter, and the natural-language description does not explain it either. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic clarification beyond the schema and therefore fails to compensate for the 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 phrase 'Render per-track stems' clearly identifies a specific verb and resource: rendering stems at the individual track level. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'render' or 'render_and_audit', though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 warning 'NOT YET IMPLEMENTED' gives clear when-not-to-use guidance: an agent should not call this tool yet. However, it provides no indication of when the tool would be appropriate or what alternative to use instead.

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