generate_music

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the duration range, the effect of force_instrumental (to avoid competing with voiceover), and the complementary nature of the music bed. It doesn't mention async behavior or error conditions, but for a generative music tool, it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 compact and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides targeted operational guidance. Every sentence is functional—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?

The description is sufficiently complete for the main use case, covering generation parameters and next steps (mixing). The presence of an output schema likely covers return values, so that absence is not a penalty. Minor omissions (e.g., async polling, verification) are compensated by the practical guidance and sibling tool context.

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?

The schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining the key parameters: prompt (with example qualifiers like 'soft, sparse'), duration_s (match to video), and force_instrumental (set true for ads). It does not explain model_id or output_path, but their defaults make them lower-risk.

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 a specific verb ('Compose'), a clear resource ('a music track'), and a scope ('from a text prompt'), also noting the duration range (3-600s). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_sound_effect and generate_elevenlabs_voiceover.

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 a detailed, concrete use case for speech ads—how to prompt for low-key background music, set force_instrumental=true, and match duration_s—and points to mix_music_into_video as a follow-up. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough.

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