map_music_dna

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that image_url is treated purely as a text hint with 'no media download', but omits permissions, determinism, latency, and any failure behavior. Listing returned fields is helpful but doesn't substitute for behavioral disclosure.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the operation and its output fields lead. The parenthetical about no media download is worth its space.

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 no output schema, listing the returned attributes (emotion, genre, textures, energy arc, etc.) is genuinely necessary and present. However, with 5 parameters, 40% coverage, and zero annotations, the definition leaves parameter behavior and operational caveats under-specified.

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 only 40% (text and image_url documented; bpm_hint, genre_hint, instrumental undocumented). The description clarifies the image_url semantics and reiterates 'free text', which partially compensates, but does not explain the three hint/flag 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 specific verb ('Extract') and a concrete resource ('structured Music DNA from free text'), so the agent knows the transformation. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like analyze_intent or suggest_keywords, which occupy overlapping semantic space.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives among the six sibling tools. The 'image_url as text hint only' note is a behavior detail rather than selection guidance.

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