atxp-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the cost ('$0.15/call'), which isn't covered by the annotations (which only indicate it's not read-only, destructive, or idempotent, and is open-world). This financial implication is crucial for an agent to know. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose, output, usage guidance, and cost. Each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, output format, usage tips, and cost. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return value (e.g., format of the URL, error handling). The annotations provide safety context, but the description compensates well overall.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters (prompt and lyrics). The description adds some semantic guidance ('Describe genre, mood, tempo, instruments, or specific style for best results') that enriches the prompt parameter's meaning, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the specific action ('Generate an AI music track'), resource ('from a text prompt using ATXP's music generation service'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools (music generation vs. email, image, or web search). It provides concrete details about the output ('Returns a URL to the generated audio file').

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Describe genre, mood, tempo, instruments, or specific style for best results'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. It implies usage for music generation needs but lacks explicit exclusions.

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