add_background_music

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: discloses that music plays from the beginning, supports audio/MIDI, explains MIDI rendering via FluidSynth, and describes auto-ducking during narration. It stops short of noting whether existing music is replaced or error conditions, but covers key behavioral traits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with purpose, followed by useful behavioral details. The final 'IMPORTANT' sentence is generic and not tool-specific, slightly reducing efficiency, but the overall structure is clear and every other sentence 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, an output schema, and full schema parameter coverage, the description provides sufficient context. It explains key behaviors (playback start, formats, MIDI rendering, ducking) that are not in the schema. It doesn't cover all edge cases, but is complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 descriptions cover all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context for file types and ducking behavior, but does not add specific parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. No significant compensation is needed, but also no enhancement.

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 identifies the action ('Add background music to the scene') and the resource (the scene). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_narration by specifying music and mentioning MIDI handling and ducking, making its unique role 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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: adding background music that plays from the beginning, with explicit supported file types and behavior when narration is present. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide appropriately.

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