Separate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the demucs method, optional GPU usage, and stem-naming behavior for the 'ref' source, but it does not state side effects, permissions, whether files or tracks are created, or expected runtime.

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 compact sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a targeted behavioral note about the 'ref' source.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and a required 'project' parameter left opaque, the description does not provide enough context for fully reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters. It clarifies the source value 'ref' and implies the demucs model family, but it does not explain the required 'project' parameter, model choices, or defaults beyond what is already in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: splitting a source into drums/bass/other/vocals stems using demucs. It also names the method and GPU behavior, making the tool's function readily distinguishable from sibling analysis or mapping 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 implies the tool is used when stems are needed, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or how it relates to siblings such as analyze_drums or stem_map_set.

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