generate_music

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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds genuinely new context: budgets are 'local quote checks, not backend hard caps' and request_ids must be reused only for retries of the same submission. This is useful behavior beyond the structured hints, though it doesn't address auth specifics or failure modes.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary action leads and the constraints follow. 'Requires paid and business switches' is slightly cryptic but still earns its place as a prerequisite.

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 mutation tool with a nested budget object and no output schema, the description omits what a submission returns (presumably a task handle polled via get_generation_task) and how quotes are obtained. Adequate but leaves the agent guessing at the post-submission flow.

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 33%, so the description must compensate but only partially does: request_id is described as stable and quote_id is implied to come from a prior quote. The nested budget object's fields (credits/video_units/music_credits) are gestured at by 'budgets for every quoted resource' but not enumerated or explained.

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+resource ('Submit one quoted music generation') that cleanly separates it from sibling read/estimate tools like estimate_music_cost and list_music_models. An agent can identify the action without opening the 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?

Gives prerequisites ('Requires paid and business switches, a stable request_id') and one explicit when-not rule ('Never automatically retry uncertain submission'). However it never names the alternative sibling (estimate_music_cost) that produces the quote_id it consumes, so the surrounding workflow is only implied.

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