Select an audio track for a pending ecard draft. Call this before generate_preview whenever the chosen card has available music; choose the best matching track from the card's availableMusic list. Recipient details are handled later on the website.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemId | Yes | ||
| audioId | No | ||
| audioName | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool operates on a pending draft and should precede generate_preview, but it does not disclose whether the selection is idempotent, whether it validates against availableMusic, or whether it returns any confirmation. This is adequate but not rich.
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 two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then adding workflow guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.
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?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides the essential workflow context (when to call) and hints at the availableMusic list, but it lacks parameter definitions and any detail about output or error behavior. It is sufficient for a simple tool but has clear gaps in parameter semantics.
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%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (itemId, audioId, audioName). It mentions 'choose the best matching track from the card's availableMusic list' but does not specify what each parameter represents or how they are used. This leaves the agent guessing about the required itemId and the roles of audioId vs audioName.
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 'Select an audio track for a pending ecard draft,' which is a specific verb (select) and resource (audio track for a draft). It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_preview (which is for preview) and personalize_message (for messages), and it includes a clear reference to the availableMusic 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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Call this before generate_preview whenever the chosen card has available music.' This positions the tool in the workflow and implies when not to use it (if no music is available). It also clarifies that recipient details are handled later, avoiding overlap with other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: browsing/searching cards, retrieving a specific card, creating a draft, personalizing the message, selecting music, and generating the preview. There is no overlap between searching and retrieving, and the draft modification tools are clearly separate from creation and finalization.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., browse_cards, create_ecard_draft, generate_preview). The verbs are specific to the action, and the nouns clearly indicate the entity being acted upon, making the pattern predictable.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for the ecard personalization workflow. Each tool covers a necessary step in the process, and the count is neither bloated nor too sparse for the domain.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle from discovering cards, creating a draft, personalizing message and music, to generating a preview handoff. Missing draft retrieval or deletion are not gaps in this context since the workflow is linear and completion occurs on the website.