Generate Music

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds critical non-obvious behavioral context: the operation is asynchronous, typically takes tens of seconds to minutes, and must be polled. No contradiction exists.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear first line, a short async guidance note, and a neat Args list. It is slightly redundant with the schema, but it remains scannable and front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description should specify what the initial call returns (e.g., a request ID) to enable polling. It only says 'Poll with xbrush_get_request' without stating the response shape, which is a notable gap. All parameters and the async flow are otherwise covered.

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 covers all 5 parameters with complete descriptions, so the Args block in the description largely restates what the schema already provides. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema's existing examples and bounds.

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 uses a specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'music' with model examples (lyria2, lyria3, lyria3-pro). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like xbrush_sound_effect_generate, xbrush_image_generate, and xbrush_video_generate.

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 clearly communicates the async workflow and points to xbrush_get_request for polling. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives (e.g., when to use sound effects vs music), but the scope is evident from the purpose line.

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