sound-generate

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. It adds useful cost context (4 credits), but says nothing about latency, rate limits, whether generation is synchronous, or what the caller receives back.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering action, scope, exclusion and cost with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 4-parameter generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical decision points (scope, exclusion, cost). It is slightly short of complete because it never says what the tool returns — an audio URL, a file, or a job id.

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%, so duration bounds, format options and prompt_influence semantics are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what is already there (even the NOT-speech note is duplicated in the prompt field).

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 (generate) and resource (sound effects and short music tracks) from text prompts, and explicitly carves out the boundary with the sibling tool tts for spoken voice. An agent can distinguish it from tts and stt without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names the exclusion case (NOT speech, use tts) and the applicable scope (sound effects, short music tracks), which is real routing guidance. It stops short of naming a full when/when-not matrix, but the one alternative that matters is called out.

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