split_instrument_outputs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: the main pair stays on the instrument's track and new tracks are named after plugin outputs. However, it omits reversibility (is it undoable?), failure modes for single-output instruments, and any permission or destructive-effect context a mutation tool should signal.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the resulting state. No padding or restatement of the name.

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?

It conveys purpose and the post-call track layout, which covers the essentials, but with no annotations and no output schema it leaves prerequisites, reversibility, and failure behavior unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps for a track-creating mutation.

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 100% and all three parameters (track, fx, outputs) are documented directly in the schema with defaults. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and outcome: giving each stereo output of a multi-output instrument its own track, with concrete examples (drum machines, Overbridge, multitimbral synths, samplers). It is unambiguous, though it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like create_track or split_item.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the instrument must be present and multi-output), and no alternative named. The second sentence describes what happens after the call, not when to reach for the tool.

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