audio_diagnose_mix

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description reinforces this ('Reads the files; changes nothing') and adds genuinely non-obvious semantics: passing means technical, not artistic, approval. It does not mention cost/latency or the 600-second default bound beyond what the schema says, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then behavior, then the interpretation caveat and workflow note. Every sentence carries information and none is redundant padding.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not describe return values, and with 100% schema coverage and full annotations it need not restate parameters. What it does add — the non-artistic-approval caveat and the re-export/re-run workflow — is exactly the missing context, making it complete for a six-parameter diagnostic tool.

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 every parameter (target enum, candidate_path, vocal_path, reference_path, instrumental_path, max_seconds) is already documented in the schema. The description only loosely gestures at the optional comparison and masking inputs and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 (diagnose a rendered mix) plus the comparison basis (technical thresholds for a delivery target), and enumerates the output shape (issues with severity, measurement, threshold, recommendation, export-readiness). It does not name the overlapping siblings (audio_compare_files, audio_analyze_masking, audio_analyze_file) even though its optional reference/masking features overlap with them, so it falls short of the 5 benchmark for sibling 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?

Gives clear situational context: it is a post-export check, and after project changes the user must export again and re-run it. No explicit when-not or named alternative tools are given, so it stops short of the 5 level.

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