compose_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral fact is that the call 'Spends ElevenLabs credits', which is a genuinely useful, non-obvious cost side effect that the schema does not convey. It says nothing further about latency, external service dependency, or auth.

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?

It is only two fragments long, so there is no bloat, but the phrasing is ungrammatical ('Generate Composition Plan Spends ElevenLabs credits') and reads as two unpunctuated notes rather than a coherent statement. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

This is a four-parameter generation tool with no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what a 'composition plan' actually is, which model to pick, how source_composition_plan is consumed, or what comes back. None of that is present, and the sole behavioral note is about credit consumption.

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 only 50%: 'prompt' and 'source_composition_plan' are documented, but 'model_id' (an enum with three versions) and 'music_length_ms' have no descriptions in either the schema or the tool description. The description contributes zero parameter meaning, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a verb ('Generate') and a resource ('Composition Plan'), so the basic action is inferable, but 'Composition Plan' is domain jargon that is never defined. More importantly, there is no differentiation from the closely related siblings compose_detailed, compose_detailed_stream, and stream_compose, leaving the agent unable to tell which entry point it wants.

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 supplies no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Given that three sibling tools (compose_detailed, compose_detailed_stream, stream_compose) appear to cover the same composition-planterritory, the absence of any routing hint is a real gap.

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