separate_vocal_splitter

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description need not repeat that. It adds useful information by saying the operation is queued and depends on vocal/BVE models, but it omits what queuing means operationally, such as job tracking or output side effects.

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 extraneous text. Every phrase contributes to identifying the action and model roles.

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?

The output schema and annotations carry much of the missing context, and the schema fully describes parameters. However, in a crowded sibling set of separation tools, the description leaves out routing guidance and useful job-lifecycle context, making it only minimally adequate.

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 all five parameters. The description only gestures at the two model parameters and does not add format or selection guidance beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Queue UVR's lead/backing vocal splitter.' It names the two model roles involved, making the split type discernible, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling separation tools such as separate_ensemble or separate_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 provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over separate_ensemble, separate_audio, start_separation, or other separation siblings. It implies usage from the tool name and model mentions but includes no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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