export_mix_spec

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key side effect: render=true writes preview files, default render=false produces no files. But it doesn't clarify the shape of the returned spec/recipe/attribution, whether the export is synchronous, or what happens to existing mix data. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value opacity somewhat, but the description itself stays thin on behavior.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The first line states the core function immediately, and the second adds the render toggle and editor context efficiently. Minor deduction for packing two distinct concepts (editor companion + render synonym) into one sentence, which slightly buries the preview_mix equivalence.

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 a 6-parameter tool with zero param descriptions and no annotations, the description leaves critical gaps: the meaning of 'attribution,' the format of the 'ffmpeg recipe,' and how the editor companion output is consumed remain undefined. The output schema likely covers return values, which is the main redeeming factor, but the agent cannot confidently craft parameters or interpret the export without more context.

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% across all 6 parameters, and the description only clarifies render (writes preview files same as preview_mix). The other five parameters (bgm_db, voice_db, ducking, asset_id, track_id) get no semantic explanation — an agent cannot infer that bgm_db/voice_db are gain levels or what ducking modifies. At 0% coverage, the description was obligated to compensate and only addressed one param.

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 ('Export the mix spec + ffmpeg recipe + attribution') plus the key distinction 'without requiring a render.' It names the likely confusable sibling preview_mix, which helps an agent separate the two. Slightly short of 5 because it doesn't contrast against non-render siblings like generate_bed or analyze_video_music, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 identifies the use case ('editor companion output') and explains the render=true relationship to preview_mix, giving the agent a decision hint. However, it never says when NOT to use export_mix_spec versus preview_mix directly (only the render=true synonym), and gives no conditions for choosing generate_bed or suggest_cuts instead. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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