soundmagic_submit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key asynchronous contract: jobs are queued, an idle worker is woken, and a job ID returns immediately. However, it omits error behavior, idempotency_key semantics, worker-busy behavior, and what subsequent steps (polling, waiting, cancelling) require.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose and the defining async behavior are front-loaded, and every clause adds information. This is appropriately concise for the top-level description of a submit tool.

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 tool has a complex nested request schema with seven operation types, and no annotations or output schema. The description does not mention the range of operations (TTS, music, mix, edit, etc.), how audio inputs are referenced, or how the returned job ID relates to sibling tools like wait/status/cancel. An agent would need to infer or inspect deeply before calling correctly.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain that 'request' is a discriminated union keyed on 'operation', nor does it mention the optional 'idempotency_key'. The schema itself is the only source of parameter semantics, and the description does not compensate for the lack of described fields.

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 states a specific verb ('Queue') and resource ('local audio creation/editing'), plus the immediate return behavior ('Returns a job ID immediately'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like soundmagic_status, soundmagic_wait, and soundmagic_cancel, which are about lifecycle management rather than submission.

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 description implies the use case—submitting asynchronous audio generation/edit jobs—but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools, nor any exclusions or alternatives. An agent can infer the basic role, but there is no stated 'use status for polling' or 'use cancel to stop' routing.

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