media.audio.music

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavior burden. 'Durable job' hints at asynchronous, persistent execution, but nothing is said about side effects, return values, how to track the job, polling expectations, or failure behavior. This is thin coverage for a job-submission operation.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, and key qualifier ('durable') are all front-loaded, making the intent immediately graspable.

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 job-generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits critical details: how the agent receives a job reference, how to check status (though sibling tools like media.job.status exist), and what input 'prompt' expects. An agent could not successfully invoke this tool based solely on the provided definition.

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?

The schema requires 'prompt' but defines no properties, and the description does not mention the prompt or any other parameters. An agent receives no guidance about what the prompt should contain, its format, or optional parameters, despite additionalProperties being allowed. The description fails to compensate for the schema's missing parameter definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and identifies the resource ('durable music generation job'), making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as media.audio.voice or media.compose, so an agent might need to infer the distinction, but 'durable job' does suggest a submitted, asynchronous task rather than a synchronous generation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like media.audio.voice, media.compose, or media.video.generate. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess about context.

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