Export audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and usefully discloses that rendering is offline and needs no audio device. It also reveals an important region-export behavior: the bounce is always dry and ignores clip gains and fades. It does not cover overwrite behavior or failure cases, so it is strong but not complete.

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 tightly written sentences front-load the core action and then explain the region alternative. Every sentence carries information relevant to correct invocation.

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 10-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation and the most important special case. The schema fully covers parameters, but the description does not document what is returned or whether existing output files are overwritten.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters, making 3 the appropriate baseline. The description adds meaningful semantics for the region option, but does not add syntax or meaning for the remaining parameters.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it renders a project offline to a WAV file. It also clearly distinguishes the whole-project mode from the region-bounce mode, so an agent can tell exactly what the tool does without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly says to pass region to bounce a single region instead of the whole project, which gives clear usage context for the main branching behavior. It does not state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but no sibling export tool exists to compare against.

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