build_style_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little. The 'Quality target: seed library Neon Horizons / Liminal Tides' line gives a useful calibration reference for output quality, but there is no statement on side effects, determinism, permissions, or how max_chars affects the result.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The quality-target clause is somewhat opaque to a reader without the referenced seed library, but it earns its place as a calibration hint.

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 tool with a deeply nested DNA schema, optional overrides, and three formatting toggles, and with no output schema or annotations, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell how DNA fields map to the produced Style field, how truncation via max_chars works, or what the returned artifact looks like.

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 40% and the description adds no per-parameter detail. 'Music DNA' and 'journey overrides' loosely map to the dna and journey params, but max_chars, include_bpm_key, and include_exclude are neither documented in the schema nor explained here, leaving the toggles' effect on output unclear.

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 artifact: 'Compose a full Suno Custom Style field from Music DNA.' The input source ('Music DNA') implicitly links it to the map_music_dna sibling, so the agent can distinguish producer from consumer. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings like suggest_keywords, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 Music DNA (+ optional journey overrides)' implies the upstream dependency and the optional-input condition, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage must be inferred from the data-flow phrasing rather than stated.

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