label_export_audio_segments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the file-naming convention, skip behavior for zero-length labels, no-overwrite policy, potential length of execution, and importantly the caveat that it is not yet independently live-tested against a running Audacity. This is thorough behavioral disclosure for a file-writing operation. It could note whether it mutates the project, but for an export operation this is largely sufficient.

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 well-organized with separate paragraphs for behavior notes and Args. The behavior paragraph is front-loaded with the core purpose. The caveat about not being live-tested is honest and valuable. Slightly verbose with the caveat sentence, but it earns its place given the trust implications.

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?

This is a file-writing operation with no output schema and no annotations. The description comprehensively covers naming conventions, skip behavior, overwrite policy, runtime expectations, and reliability status. All three parameters are explained. There is minimal ambiguity remaining for an agent invoking this 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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does: explains directory (absolute path to output directory), format (enumeration of wav, mp3, ogg, flac, aiff, mp4 with default), and num_channels (meaning of 1 vs 2 with default). This adds real semantic value beyond the bare parameter names and default values in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Export the audio under each label as its own file' and 'Splits a long recording into per-segment audio files.' This distinguishes it from siblings like label_export_chapters (different output type) and label_export (single file export). Verb+resource+output format is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives explicit operational guidance: ALWAYS tell the user which directory files will be written to BEFORE calling, explains that point labels are skipped, and notes that existing files are never overwritten. This is actionable context for when and how to invoke the tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling export tools.

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