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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds useful behavior: billing occurs through the same audio generation as generate_audio with a per-second token quote, the file is saved to the library, and it returns audio_url, duration_seconds, and generation_id. It does not explain async/job behavior, but the annotations already cover the safety profile and the added billing and output details are substantive.

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 mode distinction, then adds only relevant details about seconds, description phrasing, billing, and return values. Every sentence contributes useful information without burying the main point.

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 5-parameter generation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers both modes, length constraints, description guidance, billing, library saving, and return fields. Remaining parameter details like format and another_take_reason are already handled by the schema.

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 meaning by explaining how "bed" and "hit" fit the editing workflow and by guiding the description parameter toward feel, tempo, instruments, and texture. It does not discuss format or another_take_reason, but those are fully covered in the schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: making a music bed or one short sound hit for an edit, with no voice or words. It clearly distinguishes the two modes through "bed" and "hit" and ties them to the beat-and-hits editor workflow, but it does not explicitly name close siblings like generate_music or generate_sound_effect, so sibling differentiation relies on inference.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use this for an edit, with "bed" running under the piece and "hit" placed on every cut. It also excludes voice/words, which helps separate it from speech tools. However, it stops short of explicitly saying when to choose generate_music or generate_sound_effect instead.

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