write_lyrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by specifying that section tags stay English regardless of lyric language and that the output is ready to paste into a music-generation model. However, it does not disclose potential limitations, such as length constraints or behavior when the brief is too vague.

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 a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds only high-value details about the output format and intended downstream use, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, the required input, the output structure, the language-agnostic behavior of section tags, and the intended use case. Since an output schema exists for structured return details, the description is complete enough for an agent to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'brief' is the central creative input but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents. No deduction is warranted because the schema fully covers parameter semantics.

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 states a specific action ('Write'), a concrete resource ('original song lyrics'), and a clear input ('from a creative brief'). It also describes the output format (title plus section-tagged body), making the tool's function unambiguous even without 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?

The description clearly conveys when to use the tool: whenever a complete set of original lyrics is wanted from a creative brief. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tools exist and the context is clear enough to select the tool.

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