Song Compress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it explains the report-only default, sample-by-sample verification, bit-depth preservation, exact reclaim path, manifest files, non-deletion guarantee, untouched folders, hard-link behavior, and CPU-slot execution. This gives the agent a rich operational picture beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core action and compression benefit, and every clause generally adds operational detail. It is dense and paragraph-sized rather than cleanly segmented, but it avoids filler and stays on topic.

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 complex, annotation-free, filesystem-mutating tool with an output schema, the description is unusually complete: it covers scope, preview vs write behavior, verification, reclaim location, what is never touched, and execution context. The only minor gap is the exact project parameter format, but the operational picture is otherwise comprehensive.

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. It explains the dry parameter very well, including its default and the difference between true and false, but it only implies project through phrases like 'one song per call' and never explicitly defines the expected project identifier or format.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource: compress a finished song's stems and named renders into FLAC, bit-for-bit, about a fifth of the space. The scope is explicit ('one song per call', 'no sweep over songs'), which clearly separates it from batch-like operations even without naming a sibling.

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 clearly explains the two operating modes: dry=True is the default and only reports, while dry=False performs the conversion and moves WAVs to the reclaim folder. It also constrains usage to one song per call by the owner or user, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use this tool.

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