mirelo_text_to_sfx_submit

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'asynchronous' and 'for later polling,' which indicates non-blocking behavior and the need to poll later. However, it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., preflight), error handling, or 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 a single sentence with 15 words, front-loaded with the main action. Every word is necessary and adds value. No redundancy.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core functionality and return values (job id and URL) but omits details like default behaviors, constraints on parameters (e.g., duration limits), and the relationship to polling tools like mirelo_job_status.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (Submit), the resource (Text-to-SFX generation job), and the return values (job id and job URL for polling). It distinguishes from siblings like mirelo_text_to_sfx_generate by indicating it is asynchronous and returns a job handle.

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 implies asynchronous usage and polling but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., preflight, generate) or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons with siblings are provided.

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