compose_music

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 and discloses only a licensing/plan constraint. It says nothing about generation latency, whether the result is saved as a file (implied only by the filename param), cost, or how the output can be retrieved.

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 compact fragments: purpose first, then use cases, then the licensing caveat. Every clause earns its place, though the em-dash list is dense in a single sentence.

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 5-parameter generative media tool with no output schema, the description covers intent and licensing but omits return behavior — where the music lands, its format, and whether generation is asynchronous. An agent can call it, but cannot predict the result.

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 80% and the schema already documents prompt, seconds, filename, and instrumental (the model_id enum is self-describing). The description adds no parameter detail of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Original music from a text prompt') and enumerates concrete use cases (intro/outro themes, beds under speech, transitions) that separate it from text_to_speech and sound_effect. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 use-case list plus the plan prerequisite ('licensed for commercial use on paid plans') gives an agent clear context for when this tool fits and a real constraint to check. It stops short of naming exclusions or pointing to sibling tools for adjacent needs.

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