Generate music

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds real value by disclosing the flat-fee credit cost model and the exact output format (instrumental MP3). It does not say whether generation is synchronous or returns a job handle for get_job/list_jobs, which is a notable omission for a generative tool.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the input/output contract before the cost note. The 'explainerMusicCredits'/'hermoso_capabilities' reference is cryptic but takes no excessive 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?

For a single-param, no-output-schema tool the description covers input and output reasonably. However, it omits whether the call is async (requiring get_job polling), prompt length limits, and why the fee is described as 'explainerMusicCredits' for a RAW music tool – gaps an agent would care about.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's genre/mood/instruments/tempo list largely restates the schema's own example ('lo-fi jazz, brushed drums, 80 bpm') rather than adding new syntax, length limits, or formatting guidance.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('RAW music: describe it ... get an instrumental MP3') and names the concrete artifact produced. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_voice and generate_video by specifying instrumental MP3, though it never names an alternative outright.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated – the 'RAW music' framing suggests this is the bare text-to-instrumental path, and it points to hermoso_capabilities for fee detail, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or comparison against sibling music-related tools (find_sound, make_explainer).

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