create_composition_plan

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' directly contradicts the description's claim of creating a new plan, which is a write operation. This is a major inconsistency, undermining transparency despite additional info on cost and rate limits.

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 concise with a clear first sentence and organized Args section. The credit/rate limit sentence adds relevant context, though it could be slightly tighter. Still, it is well-structured.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and relationship to sibling tools, but the annotation contradiction undermines completeness. With an output schema present, return values are not required. However, the contradiction leaves the agent uncertain about behavioral expectations.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful details: prompt is explained, music_length_ms includes valid range and optionality, and source_composition_plan is described as an optional source. This compensates well for the lack of schema 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 'Create a composition plan for music generation,' specifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'compose_music' tool by explaining that plans are used with that tool.

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 explains that no credits are used and rate limits apply, giving clear context for when to use. It also mentions the relationship to 'compose_music', but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives.

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