project_export_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output format (WAV, stereo, 44.1kHz), the overwrite refusal default, and mandatory user-notification and folder-placement rules. It does not mention whether the export is synchronous or returns status, but it covers the most critical side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by mandatory usage constraints and parameter documentation. Every sentence carries necessary information, and the layout with an Args block is easy to parse.

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 simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: format, path, overwrite policy, and safety constraints. It could slightly improve by referencing get_default_export_folder or explicitly contrasting with project_export_selection, but overall it is adequate for correct invocation.

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 fully explain parameters. It does: 'path: Absolute path for the exported .wav file' and 'overwrite: Set true to replace an existing file at that path - refused by default'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema types.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Export the full project's audio (all tracks, stereo, 44.1kHz WAV)'. This differentiates it from the sibling project_export_selection by explicitly scoping to the full project, so an agent can identify when this tool is appropriate.

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 provides clear usage context: export full project audio, always tell the user the save location beforehand, and never save to the home folder root. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or direct mention of project_export_selection, but the 'full project' wording strongly implies the alternative for partial exports.

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