separate_stems

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait: the operation returns immediately with a job id rather than blocking for results. It stops short of mentioning side effects like stem files being written to disk, but the immediate-return behavior is the most important thing an agent needs to know.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately gives the crucial return behavior, so every sentence earns its place.

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 moderately complex async tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the input, the expected stem outputs, and the immediate job-id return. It would be slightly richer if it pointed to stem_job_status for tracking, but the sibling names and schema defaults cover most remaining needs.

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 coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents path, out_dir, and quality. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the idea that the audio file is split into stems; model and backend remain explained only through enums/defaults. This is adequate but not compensatory.

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 ('Start separating'), identifies the resource ('one audio file'), and states the concrete outputs ('vocals / drums / bass / other'). It also distinguishes this launcher tool from sibling status/cancel/backends tools by noting it returns a job id immediately.

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 phrasing 'Start separating' and 'Returns a job id immediately' clearly frame this as the async job-launching tool, implying that stem_job_status should be used afterward. It gives clear context but does not explicitly say 'use stem_job_status to monitor' or state when not to use this tool.

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