separate_music_stems

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions retaining a ZIP and output location, but never says this may be a paid/async operation, how long it takes, what happens when allow_paid is false (and the cost gate is rejected), or what "verified" stems means; the cost-related parameters in the schema hint at behavior the description never explains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the outcome second; no filler. Minor deduction for the compressed phrasing "retain the returned ZIP," which is opaque without context.

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 five-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool this is thin: the stem variation choice and both cost flags are unaddressed, and required vs optional inputs are not clarified. The workflow shape (upload → separate → extract to GENERATED_DIR) is at least conveyed.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. It only loosely maps to input_path/filename via "uploaded music file" and says nothing about stem_variation_id (two vs six stems) or the allow_paid/allow_unknown_cost gating.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Separate an uploaded music file" ... "extract each verified audio stem") and states the output destination (GENERATED_DIR). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tool extract_music_stems, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

"Uploaded music file" implies a prior upload step, which is the only usage cue. There is no statement of when to choose this over extract_music_stems, isolate_voice, or split_audio, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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