Stem Map Set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully clarifies that this is a declarative grouping rather than an audio operation ('no separation artefacts on your side'), but it omits whether the mapping overwrites prior state, what the project must be, or side effects. Partial disclosure only.

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 packed sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the downstream payoff ('builds your stems ... no separation artefacts') stated second. No filler, though the inline JSON example adds a little density without much loss of clarity.

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. For a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers purpose and downstream use but leaves the project parameter and the overwrite/merge behavior unexplained, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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. The mapping example {'kick': 'drums', 'riff': 'other'} conveys the key/value semantics (track name to stem name), but the required 'project' parameter is entirely unaddressed, leaving half the surface 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: 'Declare which reference stem each of your tracks belongs to', reinforced with a concrete mapping example. It distinguishes the tool's role relative to cmp_run, though the stem-map concept is domain-specific and no other sibling does this exact task, so no explicit sibling contrast is needed.

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 second sentence implies usage by tying it to cmp_run(stems='tracks'), which tells the agent this map feeds later stem building. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternate path described.

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