matchering_inputs

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

Annotations already state readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, and openWorld=false. The description adds useful context that this queues asynchronous mastering and guarantees a verified 24-bit WAV output, but it omits whether a job ID is returned or how completion is tracked.

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 with no filler. It efficiently packs the action, the Matchering system, and the resulting output quality.

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?

An output schema exists and parameter coverage is complete, so return-value details are not required in the description. However, for a queued asynchronous operation, the description should signal job tracking or handoff to status tools such as get_job; that remains implicit.

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%, so all three path parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the structured schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 action (queue reference mastering with Matchering) and a concrete output (verified 24-bit WAV). The resource and operation are distinct from the separation/model-management siblings, though no sibling is explicitly named for differentiation.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and it does not name any alternative or related job-tracking tool. The queueing context is only inferable from the verb 'Queue'.

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