upload_song

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is mostly covered. The description adds an important behavioral trait, 'Spends ElevenLabs credits,' but omits upload semantics such as supported formats, destination behavior, and latency/return characteristics.

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 very short and front-loads the action before the credit warning. However, the grammar is rough, and the first fragment largely restates the tool name rather than adding structured detail.

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 six-parameter upload tool with no output schema, the description does not explain when to use it, how file_path and file_base64 relate, or what the upload produces. Annotations cover safety, but the description leaves significant operational context missing.

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 all six parameters, including file_path, file_base64, file_filename, and the optional timestamp/waveform/composition-plan flags. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints for these parameters.

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 verb and resource ('Upload Music') but does not distinguish this tool from sibling upload tools such as upload_asset or upload_file_route, and the phrasing is close to restating the tool name upload_song. The added credit warning is useful but does not clarify the core purpose beyond a vague upload action.

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?

Provides no indication of when to call this tool versus alternatives like upload_asset, add_from_file, or create_audio_native_project. The only guidance-like statement is an implicit cost warning, with no prerequisites or route-selection criteria.

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