separate_chain

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

Annotations already declare this is non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful operational context by saying the tool queues a chain and routes each step's output into the next, but it does not explain job behavior, async tracking, failure handling, or what 'queue' concretely means.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to gaps in routing and behavioral 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?

For a complex multi-step mutation tool with up to eight chain steps, rich separation options, and several separation siblings, the description is too thin. The output schema and detailed input schema reduce the burden, but the definition still omits when to use this tool versus related separation tools and how queued chains are observed.

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 the schema already documents audio_path, steps, output_dir, profile, keep_intermediates, and the nested options. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which meets the baseline when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Queue,' and a clear resource, 'cleanup/separation chain,' and explains that each declared source becomes the next input. It does not, however, distinguish this chain tool from siblings such as separate_ensemble or start_separation.

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 guidance on when to choose separate_chain over alternatives like separate_ensemble, start_separation, separate_audio, or separate_batch. The only implied usage is the chain shape itself, which is not enough to route an agent among siblings.

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