Media Analyze Music

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that instruments/mood/tags/tempo/key/meter are 'model interpretations' (non-deterministic, consistent with idempotentHint=false) and that PCM clocks and hashes tie each section to evidence. This is real behavioral context the structured fields don't convey.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the interpretive caveat and evidence note. Every sentence earns its place, though the caveat could be integrated more crisply.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the interpretive caveat and evidence model, leaving only explicit routing/prerequisite guidance unaddressed.

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% and the nested request object is fully documented, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 verb and resource: 'Infer timed musical sections and properties from actual decoded audio.' An agent can tell this apart from generic siblings like audio_dsp_analyze or audio_transcribe, though it never explicitly names or contrasts with them.

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 'from actual decoded audio' implies a decoded-source precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (audio_dsp_analyze, audio_transcribe, media_perceive), and no exclusions or prerequisites such as authorization for submission.

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