capture_track_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the write-gating flag, where the flag lives, how to set it, that it is read once per bridge load, and that the call is synchronous and blocks the bridge for the render duration. It also explains the fallback behavior for item-based tracks.

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 with the action and result before the gating detail, and every clause carries operational weight. The middle section is dense and hyphen-heavy, which slows parsing slightly, but there is little genuine redundancy.

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?

Covers the hard parts an agent cannot infer: gating, reload semantics, fallback scope, and blocking behavior. The one gap is the output — 'returns its evidence scope' is asserted but never described, and there is no output schema to fall back on, though this is minor relative to the rest.

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 86%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including defaults and the edit-cursor/no-selection start behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that and does not clarify precedence among the four overlapping targeting options (track, track_contains, target_track_guid, use_selected_track).

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 — 'Render a track capture to WAV' — plus the scope of what gets returned ('evidence scope'). It also pre-empts a likely confusion by clarifying that only isolated_track with isolation_verified=true yields true per-track audio, which no sibling tool overlaps with.

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 a concrete precondition set (allow_audio_writes=true or the legacy allow_risk_level_3 fallback, plus a reload_bridge or REAPER relaunch) and states explicitly what is NOT required (save_project, preference rights). It does not point to an alternative tool for the full_mix fallback case, so it stops short of full when-to-use guidance.

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