export_regions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it describes one-shot processing (mono unless listed in stereo, DC removed, leading/trailing silence trimmed, peak set), loop handling (seamless crossfade, length reported), dithering by bit depth, and even a warning when a region clips the sound's tail. It omits overwrite behavior, permission requirements, and error/return handling.

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 core behavior (region-per-file export in one pass) is front-loaded, and the remaining sentences are dense with specifics rather than filler. It is long, but each clause conveys distinct processing behavior, so little reads as waste.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is substantially complete on processing behavior and workflow. Remaining gaps are overwrite semantics, return value, and any permission/cost considerations, which are minor relative to what is covered.

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 high at 89%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds interpretation for peak_db, stereo, and loops (explaining how they change output), but parameters like overwrite, sample_rate, folder, and bit_depth are left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb and resource: exports each region of the project as its own file named after the region, in one render pass. This clearly distinguishes it from a single-file or stem export. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like export_mix or export_stems, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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 closing instruction ("Put each sound in its own region with a little room after it, then call this once") gives useful preparation context and implies the when. But it never names or contrasts the alternative export tools (export_mix, export_stems), so the choice among them is left implicit.

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