export_dolby

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the encoding behavior, codec limitations, and default settings. However, it does not explicitly state side effects like file overwriting or permission requirements, though the operation is implied. Slight gap but still strong.

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 description is front-loaded with the main action and important caveat. It is concise but includes necessary details. Could be slightly more structured, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema and moderate parameter coverage, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter nuances, and limitations. It could mention what happens if the output file exists, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent.

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?

The schema has 60% description coverage; the description adds meaning by clarifying default stereo at 48kHz (not in schema) and explaining the channels parameter for 5.1 upmix. For codec, it lists the options. It adds value beyond schema but does not detail all parameters (e.g., bitrate not explained).

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 clearly states that the tool encodes a track to Dolby codecs (eac3 or ac3), specifying the verb 'Encode' and resource 'track to a Dolby codec'. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with Dolby Atmos, making its unique purpose clear.

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 description provides explicit guidance: it warns that for a stereo music single there is no sonic benefit, and says True Atmos requires Dolby's Renderer and separate stems. It also suggests using channels=6 for a basic 5.1 upmix, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use advice.

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