SoundBreak

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the rest and does it well: it discloses the complimentary vs. connected-account song-count default, the roughly one-minute latency, the polling contract with poll_again, and the absence of an in-chat widget. These are behaviors an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Built from short, imperative sentences that front-load the action, then the follow-up polling flow, then the failure guard. It is slightly repetitive on end_user_id consistency, which is stated in the description and again in the schema, but no sentence is wasted.

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 7-parameter generation tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what returns (generation_id to poll), how long it takes, how to detect completion, and what to do with the result. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics beyond the schema: reusing the same end_user_id across every generate/status/library/take-down call, preferring artist_name over ai_cowriter_id, and the rule that the account tier (not the request) determines whether one or two songs come back. Some of this restates schema text, keeping it off a 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Start a SoundBreak song generation with an AI artist'), naming the product and the actor. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_song_generation_status, list_my_songs, or remove_song_preview.

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?

Explicitly routes to the alternative: poll get_song_generation_status with generation_id and the same end_user_id until generation_status is complete, keeping at it while poll_again is true. It also gives a pre-condition (do not invent end_user_id if missing) and a post-action (share listen_url, no in-chat widget).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that no user account is required, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It doesn't describe the response format, but with no output schema, that's a minor gap.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose, includes the key identifier, and mentions the included fields. No wasted words.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It could mention the response format, but the annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers the parameter. The 'no user account required' note adds useful context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds that the ID is from list_artists, which is helpful context, but doesn't add much beyond the schema's own description.

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 retrieves details for a specific artist by ai_cowriter_id, and explicitly mentions the included fields (opener message and write URL). It distinguishes itself from list_artists by focusing on a single artist's details rather than a list.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need details for a specific artist by ID, and the sibling list_artists provides the ID. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it references poll_again, generation_status, ready_to_share, and listen_url, and explains the condition for sharing the result. It also warns that there is no in-chat widget, which is useful behavioral context an agent would not infer from the schema or annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, all purposeful: the purpose, the trigger condition, the polling loop, and the sharing condition. No filler or repetition of schema details. The most important instruction is front-loaded.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description supplies the essential return-related semantics an agent needs: poll_again controls looping, ready_to_share gates sharing, and listen_url is the artifact to share. Combined with read-only annotations, this is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents end_user_id and generation_id thoroughly. The tool description adds only that end_user_id should be the same as the create call and that generation_id comes from create_song_generation, which is mild added value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Poll a SoundBreak song generation until complete.' It also anchors the tool in the generation lifecycle by explicitly linking it to create_song_generation, which clearly differentiates it from the sibling list, artist, and preview tools. This is unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to call the tool ('Call after create_song_generation with generation_id and the same end_user_id') and when to keep calling ('Keep calling while poll_again is true'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use it, but the polling context is strong enough to prevent misuse.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds that no user account is needed and specifies exact output formatting via list_label. It does not mention pagination or data freshness, but for a read-only list this is reasonable; no contradiction with annotations.

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 the core purpose and then gives precise output formatting rules and examples. It is a bit longer than strictly necessary, but each sentence contributes operational guidance, so it earns its place.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description still tells the agent exactly what to print (list_label) and shows concrete examples. For a simple read-only list tool, this is complete enough to call and render 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool; no param documentation burden.

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 the exact operation (list) and resource (active SoundBreak AI artists/cowriters) and clarifies they are for co-writing. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_artist_details and list_my_songs without needing to inspect schemas.

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 'No user account required' note gives useful access context, and 'available for co-writing' implies when to call it, but the description never explicitly routes to alternatives such as get_artist_details for individual artist info or create_song_generation. There are no when-not-to-use or alternative conditions.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful operational details: only finished songs are returned, listen_url should only be shared when ready_to_share is true, links are previews not releases, user_notice must be included verbatim, and remove_preview_url should be rendered as a 'Remove preview' markdown link.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second gives the trigger context, and the third delivers the key operational constraints. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers usage trigger, parameter emphasis, and important output-handling rules despite the absence of an output schema. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke and use this tool 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 100%, so both limit and end_user_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description's reference to 'this end_user_id' reinforces a parameter but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List recent finished SoundBreak songs for this end_user_id.' It also names the exact user trigger ('Use when the user asks what songs they made') and is distinguishable from siblings like list_artists and get_song_generation_status.

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 explicitly provides the when-to-use signal: 'Use when the user asks what songs they made.' It does not explicitly contrast alternatives such as get_song_generation_status for unfinished songs, but the context is clear enough for a read-only list operation.

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

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

Annotations only say destructive=true and openWorld=true; the description adds the crucial behavioral facts that recordings and lyrics survive, that a subset of songs is ineligible, and what to tell the user after success. It also directly resolves the destructive-hint tension by clarifying this is a page take-down, not a data deletion.

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 action and the critical non-delete clarification, then triggers, exclusions, and parameter sourcing. Slightly redundant with repeated 'Do not call this delete' / 'not removed this way' framing, but every sentence carries actionable content.

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?

Covers the action, exclusions, parameter sourcing, and required post-success messaging, which is more than most mutation tools offer. No output schema exists, and the description doesn't describe the success/failure response shape or identify required parameters, so it is not fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents revision_id as the source and revision_hash as the fallback from listen_url. The description restates the preference order and warns 'Do not invent revision ids,' but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('take down the public SoundBreak preview page for a song this user created') and immediately bounds it with 'Does not delete the recording.' This distinguishes it from an actual delete and from the generation/list siblings an agent would otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Explicit activation triggers ('take a song down, remove the listen page, or unlist a preview') plus hard exclusions ('Songs on SoundBreak Radio or submitted for store distribution cannot be removed this way'). This is exactly the when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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