export_mix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It discloses that it exports the master with its effects applied and reports loudness and true peak, which is meaningful behavior. It does not, however, cover overwrite behavior, where files land, or the gain-only adjustment caveat beyond what already lives in 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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded and the sequencing hint follows immediately.

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 14-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does mention the return-relevant facts (loudness and true peak). It is adequate, though it could say more about the write side effects given the absence of annotations.

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 79%, so the schema itself documents nearly all 14 parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter semantics (formats, bit depth, targets) beyond what the schema already carries, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Exports) plus the exact resource (the finished mix/master with its effects) and the outputs (audio file, loudness and true peak report). This is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like export_stems and export_regions, only mentioning master_to_target.

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?

Provides a useful workflow hint ('Use master_to_target first for a release master'), which implies sequencing. However, there is no when-not guidance and no explicit contrast with export_stems/export_regions, so the agent must infer when to choose this over those siblings.

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