sapiens_stock_audio

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important details: read sub-actions are public and auth-free, generate requires login and costs Sinapses, generation is asynchronous and should be polled via generation-status, failures are reimbursed, and list returns {count, items}. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause carries useful information. However, it is a single long paragraph with many intertwined concerns (actions, auth, pricing, async flow, alternatives), which could be more scannable. It is appropriately sized given the tool's complexity, but structure could be improved.

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 tool has 14 parameters, 5 actions, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers auth requirements, cost implications, async behavior, polling until ready/failed, list result shape, filtering options, available moods, and routing to the correct sibling. Nothing critical appears missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already covers all 14 parameters with descriptions, so the bar is high. The description adds operation-level meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining that kind='sfx' covers whoosh/clique/impacto/ambiência/foley, clarifying that generated effects are short (1-15s), and describing provider cost differences. Some schema descriptions are duplicated, but the extra context is valuable.

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 identifies the resource (stockAudio audio bank) and the specific actions available (categories, list, get, generate, generation-status), and contrasts it with sapiens_musicator for new music. This goes beyond restating the tool name and differentiates it from sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool ('Use pra puxar trilha/efeito pronto... pega a url e usa direto no ffmpeg'), when to fall back to generate ('Não achou o efeito? generate...'), and when to use the sibling tool ('música/trilha nova é no sapiens_musicator'). This is strong when-versus-alternative guidance.

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