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 clearly discloses that the tool writes files to disk and explains nuanced behavior: path is exact for master but directory-only for stems, pattern controls stem filenames, and ignored parameters are called out. It does not mention overwrite behavior or success/error results, which is a minor gap for a file-writing tool.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, then follows a clean Args list. Each parameter's explanation is dense but relevant, with no filler or repeated schema information. The nuance around stems versus master is organized clearly and earns its length.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all invocation-critical details: path, format, source, track_indices, and pattern interactions. It is not quite fully complete because it does not describe what the tool returns, whether existing files are overwritten, or what happens on failure, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter in detail: path semantics, allowed format values, source modes, track_indices JSON format, and pattern defaults. This goes far beyond the bare schema titles and defaults, making the tool safe to invoke correctly.

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 starts with a clear, specific statement: 'Render project to audio file(s) on disk.' It identifies the resource (project), the action (render/export), and the output type (audio files). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like bounce_stems, so it falls short of a 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 gives solid guidance for choosing between source='master' and source='stems', and it clarifies parameter requirements such as track_indices being required for stems. However, it never tells the agent when to prefer this tool over alternatives like bounce_stems or project_save, so usage context relative to siblings is only implied.

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