mix_vocal_over_beat

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: sidechain ducking, EQ, reverb, and output format. It does not mention destructive nature or requirements, but covers the core processing well.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action, followed by output format and downstream tool. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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 the complexity of audio mixing and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, effects, output format, and linkage to master_audio. It could mention the file format expectations for inputs, but overall complete enough.

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 description adds value beyond the input schema by explaining the overall processing context (sidechain, EQ, reverb). Schema itself covers 83% of parameters with descriptions; the tool description complements it by showing how parameters relate to the audio effect.

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 the tool's purpose: mixing vocal over an instrumental with specific audio processing effects (sidechain ducking, presence EQ, light reverb, beat pulled underneath). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning the output is a pre-master for master_audio.

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 indicates when to use this tool (before master_audio) and gives a brief context of the processing chain. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, though the sibling list suggests different stages.

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