bounce_stems

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

Despite no annotations, the description details critical side effects: source tracks are automatically muted, stems inserted below sources, and works with pre-fader+post-FX. It also notes undocumented REAPER behavior, fully disclosing what happens during invocation.

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?

Well-structured with headers and bullet points, but somewhat lengthy. Each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but still effective.

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 complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is comprehensive: covers purpose, side effects, prerequisites (REAPER 5.x), and comparison with sibling. No gaps identified.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description explains track_indices (JSON array of indices) and clarifies that output_dir and format are reserved/not currently used. This compensates well, though the schema could be improved with descriptions.

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 renders tracks as individual audio stems in-project, using a specific REAPER action. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool project_export_audio, which is for exporting to disk.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance, including side effects like auto-muting and the alternative export tool. Mentions the need to call track_set_mute(False) if originals are needed. This helps the agent choose correctly.

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