export_sound

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the original is untouched, that a new file is written, and even an edge case (peaky material may land quieter than the LUFS target and the result reports it). What it omits is failure behavior and the destination path of the written file.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then one clause per parameter, with no filler. Minor deductions for the loosely attached 'and the fades are in seconds' clause and a slightly tangled run-on around the peak-ceiling caveat.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the transformation parameters thoroughly but leaves two parameters entirely undescribed. Since `output_dir` and `name` determine where the new file lands, an agent cannot fully predict the side effect of the call from the description alone.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description has to compensate, and it largely does: path input types, format values, the four loudness presets with their LUFS numbers plus numeric override, the 1 dB peak ceiling, sample_rate semantics, trim_silence behavior, and that fades are in seconds. The remaining gap is that `name` and `output_dir` are never mentioned, leaving the agent unsure how the output file is located or named.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource (convert a sound file) plus three transformation axes (format, level, length) and the outcome (saving a new file). That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from mix_sounds or make_loop, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with create_sound or preview_sound.

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?

Usage is implied by 'saving a new file' and 'The original file is untouched', which suggests a non-destructive derive-a-copy operation. However, there is no explicit statement about when to choose this over preview_sound (to audition) or create_sound (to originate), so the alternative-selection logic must be inferred from sibling names.

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