stemlab_repair_spectrograms

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: the call returns a retained background job (async, must be polled), the base effect set is 'write', and additional inference/download effects are conditional and discoverable via danceflow_component. This complements destructiveHint=true/readOnlyHint=false without contradicting them. It still does not say explicitly that existing PNGs are replaced in place or what happens if NPZ evidence is missing.

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 tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, then return behavior, then effect flags, then conditional-effect pointer. No filler, though 'Inspect danceflow_component for conditional inference/download effects' is terse enough to be slightly cryptic on first read.

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 asynchronous, destructive, permission-gated job tool this covers the essential call pattern (start job, poll status) and the effect model, and an output schema exists so return values need no prose. The remaining gap is what exactly is overwritten and the failure mode when source NPZ evidence is absent.

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 50% schema description coverage, the description gives useful meaning for the required 'results' parameter (an existing results directory containing retained NPZ evidence) and contextualizes the permissions object via the effect-flags sentence. However, 'max_plot_frames' is never mentioned in either the description or the schema, leaving one of two parameters fully undocumented.

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 ('Repair spectrogram PNGs') plus the input source ('retained NPZ evidence') and the target container ('existing results directory'). That is far more precise than the bare name, though it does not name a sibling it is distinct from (e.g. likenessforge_repair or a fresh generate path).

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 precondition is implicit but clear: works only on an existing results directory that still has NPZ evidence. It also routes the agent forward, telling it to poll danceflow_job_status and to inspect danceflow_component for conditional effects. No explicit 'do not use this when...' exclusion is given.

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