music_generation

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

Annotations offer no safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses the rejection mechanism without a skill grant and the asynchronous behavior ('If the result is queued or running, do not submit it again; return the task id and stop the turn'), adding value beyond the structured fields. No 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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: stating the function, imposing a prerequisite, and giving task-handling instruction. No filler or redundancy. Front-loaded and efficient.

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's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotation detail), the description is sparse. It does not mention return values, parameter meanings, error handling, or how to construct a valid prompt. The task-id guidance is helpful but insufficient for a production-grade tool.

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 only 9%, with just one parameter (model_option_id) having a description. The tool description does not explain any of the 11 parameters (e.g., prompt, style, title), leaving the agent without semantic guidance. This is a critical gap.

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's function: 'Generate a project music asset through the UGCmind Tool Runtime.' The verb 'Generate' and resource 'project music asset' are specific, and the tool name and mention of 'music' distinguish it from image/video/speech generation siblings.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites and constraints: 'Call run_skill first' and 'rejects direct calls without the active skill grant/run descriptor.' Also advises handling queued/running results by not resubmitting and returning the task id. This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not directly compare to sibling tools.

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