producer_generate_custom_music

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that the tool generates melody and arrangement from lyrics, and returns a Task ID (implying asynchronous behavior) and audio information. It does not detail potential side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but for a generative AI tool this level of disclosure is reasonable and aligns with expectations.

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 well-structured: a concise first sentence, followed by an explanation, a 'Use this when' bullet list, an alternative reference, and a returns line. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 10 parameters, 2 required, and existence of output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage guidelines, and return value. It does not explain all parameters (schema covers that), but for agent decision-making it is sufficiently complete. However, it could mention that callback_url enables asynchronous notifications, which might be relevant.

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 schema already describes all parameters. The description adds some context by mentioning 'lyrics with section markers' and 'specific song title', reinforcing the schema but not significantly expanding meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Generate AI music with full control over lyrics, title, and style'. It specifies the verb (generate), resource (custom music), and scope (full control), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling producer_generate_music by contrasting 'quick generation without writing lyrics'.

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 phrase 'Use this when:' introduces three specific conditions for use, and directly names the alternative: 'For quick generation without writing lyrics, use producer_generate_music instead.' This provides clear when-to and when-not-to guidance.

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