mixx_stems

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context (Demucs dependency, bridge-state detection of a loaded deck, OSC delivery to sampler decks), but omits side effects, reversibility, dry-run behavior, and failure modes for a tool that mutates sampler/deck state.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then clean labelled sections for operations, returns, and examples. Every line earns its place, though the 'PORTMANTEAU PATTERN' boilerplate slightly inflates length without adding call-relevant information.

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 9-parameter, 6-operation tool with no annotations, the description covers operations, prerequisites, examples, and confirms an output schema exists (so return details need not be restated). The main remaining gap is that prerequisites are not tied to failure behavior, but overall an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it maps each operation to the parameters it needs (deck, enable, sampler, value with range 0.0-1.0, output_dir, deck_a/deck_b) and the examples demonstrate expected values. The 'stem' parameter and its default are never explained, leaving a minor gap.

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 opening line names a specific verb and resource ('Stem separation and sampler control using Demucs') and the SUPPORTED OPERATIONS list enumerates exactly what each mode does. It is clear what the tool is, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like mixx_transition or mixx_deck by name.

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?

Per-operation prerequisites are stated ('Requires a track loaded on the deck', 'requires enable', 'requires value, 0.0-1.0'), which is genuine usage guidance. However there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this tool over sibling tools such as mixx_transition for transitions, so the routing logic is only implied.

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