sing_cover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses the side effect (downloading and writing a file to the output directory), the 60-second cap, and critically that ai mode fails loudly with a specific missing-component message rather than silently falling back to original. It also reveals that the script auto-selects pitch and reports it back via `pitchNote`.

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?

Front-loaded with the pipeline in a single sentence, then mode semantics, then the pitch warning — a sensible ordering. It is fairly dense with no filler, though the pitch auto-tuning point is partially restated from the schema description rather than fully earning its space.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description still names the key return values (filename, and pitchNote in ai mode), which is the essential information for chaining to a voice-send tool. It leaves minor gaps such as what happens when no song is found or whether the output file is overwritten, but nothing blocking for correct 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real guidance by telling the agent not to guess `pitch` and to leave it blank for auto-tuning, rather than leaving the agent to interpret the -24..24 range itself. It also reinforces mode semantics beyond the enum labels, though it adds nothing about `candidate`, `startSeconds`, or `seconds` beyond what the schema says.

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?

Names a specific verb and artifact (sing a clip) and lays out the concrete pipeline: search online → download source → clip ≤60s → write to output dir → return filename. The two modes are defined distinctly, so an agent can tell exactly what the tool produces without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear conditions for each mode (original = source clip, ai = RVC voice conversion requiring a ready local model) and names sing_search as the way to preview candidates before setting `candidate`. It also tells the agent the follow-up step (send via the bot framework's voice tool). It does not mention sing_probe or when this tool is the wrong choice, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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