video_generate_music

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the required environment variable, notes that duration is a guide and API determines final length, and specifies lyrics requirement when not instrumental. However, it does not discuss error handling, rate limits, or side effects.

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 well-structured with an Args section, each parameter explained concisely. Slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. Could be tightened slightly without loss.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, return values are covered. The description explains inputs, environment requirement, API behavior notes, and parameter interdependencies. Lacks mention of output format or file type, but adequate for generation.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning: examples for prompt, model options with tier notes, lyrics structure guidance, default for is_instrumental, and duration caveat. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Generate music from a text prompt using the MiniMax API,' specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like audio_compose or audio_synthesize by referencing the API and text-to-music generation.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audio_synthesize or video_add_audio. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites beyond the API key.

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