export_stems

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the signal chain ('post-fader, with its effects but not the master's') and the alignment behavior ('all the same length so they line up from the same start'). It leaves some gaps, such as overwrite behavior and error handling when files already exist, but the core behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that opens with the core action and then adds the most important qualifiers. No filler or repetition; every phrase contributes useful context.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral traits well. But for a 10-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 30% schema description coverage, it leaves parameter semantics largely undocumented, which limits an agent's ability to invoke it correctly with non-default settings.

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 only 30% across 10 parameters. The description does not explain any parameter names or semantics (e.g., start_bar, end_bar, tail_seconds, bit_depth, sample_rate, overwrite). It only describes the overall output concept, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 track as its own audio file.' The parenthetical details (post-fader, track effects but not master) further clarify the output. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like export_mix or export_regions, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Gives clear use contexts: 'for mixing elsewhere, remixes, or sharing parts.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for adjacent tasks, leaving the agent to infer the boundaries.

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