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

Discloses key non-obvious behavior: output is deterministic given the same payload and seed, and the result is delivered as an audio_wav artifact with a download URL in job_get. Since no output schema exists, this is valuable; annotations only provide generic hints and nothing contradicts the description.

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?

Three dense sentences front-load the purpose and parameter categories, with no filler. The lists are compact, and each sentence adds a distinct fact: what is generated, determinism, and how the artifact is delivered.

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 an 11-parameter, no-output-schema job tool, it covers the typical workflow: artifact and download URL in job_get, parameter scoping by audio kind, and deterministic guarantees. It could say more about the async job lifecycle, but the job_get reference is likely sufficient.

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?

With only 45% schema description coverage, the description compensates by grouping the BGM parameters (bpm, bars, root, scaleMode, voice) and linking presets to sfx/jingles and seed to determinism. It doesn't exhaustively define every enum value, but it clarifies the main parameter relationships.

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 action (synthesize deterministic 16-bit PCM WAV), names the output artifact, and enumerates the three audio kinds: sfx presets, win/lose jingles, and loopable BGM. This clearly distinguishes it from asset_generate_3d and other resource-generating siblings.

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 concrete use cases and parameter groupings: sfx presets, jingles, or BGM loops, and notes exact-bar looping. It stops short of explicitly naming when-not-to-use alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for game-audio generation.

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