postfader_review_export_handoff

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context by emphasizing 'precise' and 'only necessary stems,' suggesting a selective, non-mutating action. It does not contradict annotations and provides some extra detail beyond what annotations convey, though it does not explain the full behavior (e.g., whether it touches the review session or just generates a request).

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, focused sentence that communicates the core purpose without excess. It is front-loaded with the key output ('full-mix export request') and the qualifier ('only necessary stems'). It is concise and effective, though it could benefit from a brief clause on when to use it.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema present, annotations cover safety), the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explain what a 'handoff' means in the review workflow or how this tool fits with siblings like postfader_review_start or postfader_review_evaluate. Some workflow context is missing, but the presence of an output schema and safe annotations partially compensates.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'review_session_id,' with a description explaining it awaits a bounce. The tool description does not add any extra parameter-specific meaning beyond this, so with high schema coverage the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'return' and identifies a precise output: 'one precise full-mix export request and only necessary stems.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling export-related tools like postfader_delivery_export_manifest by focusing on review handoff. However, it could be more specific about what a 'full-mix export request' entails (e.g., format or destination), so it stops short of 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as postfader_review_get or postfader_review_apply_revision. There is no mention of prerequisites, workflow context, or exclusions. The name hints at usage, but the description itself does not provide explicit usage guidance.

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