upload_music_for_inpainting

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: cost implications, enterprise gating, and return of song_id for downstream use. This exceeds annotation coverage without contradiction.

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 well-structured with clear paragraphs, an Args block, and a prominent cost warning. It front-loads the primary purpose and is appropriately sized, though some minor redundancies could be trimmed.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, parameters, cost, and enterprise restrictions. It omits file format or size limits but remains comprehensive for a simple 2-parameter tool with open-world hint.

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 0%, but the description's Args section explains both parameters: input_file_path as local file path, extract_composition_plan with default 'music_v2' and possible values. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's minimal type/title.

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 tool uploads an audio file to ElevenLabs for inpainting workflows, returns a song_id for use in compose_music, and optionally extracts a composition plan. It distinguishes from sibling tools like compose_music and isolate_audio by specifying its unique upload and reference purpose.

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 when to use the tool (for inpainting workflows, optionally extracting composition plan) and includes a cost warning and enterprise gating note. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings.

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