extract_music_stems

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the rejection rules (traversal, symlinks, non-audio entries, oversized expansions), which is real security context. But it omits critical behavior: whether rejected entries cause a hard failure or are silently skipped, what 'supported audio' formats are, and where files are written relative to filename_prefix.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the safety guarantees. Zero filler and nothing repeated from the name.

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?

For a two-parameter extraction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives good security posture but leaves the outcome undefined — no statement of what is returned (paths? counts?), where files land, or what happens on partial rejection. An agent can attempt the call but cannot predict its result.

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% for both required parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. Neither zip_path nor filename_prefix is explained — notably filename_prefix implies output naming and possibly per-file prefixing, but the description says nothing about how it is applied or what collisions do.

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: extract audio tracks from a generated ZIP. An agent can tell this is a ZIP-unpacking tool rather than a stem-separation tool, though the description never acknowledges the similarly named sibling separate_music_stems, which is the main confusion risk here.

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 phrase 'from a generated ZIP' implies the input must come from an upstream generation step, giving implied context for when to call it. However, it never states preconditions explicitly, never names an alternative, and gives no guidance on what to do if the ZIP is invalid or partially extractable.

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