compose_music

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that a file is saved and returns its path, which is transparent. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, pricing, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 fairly concise, starting with a clear statement and then listing Args. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but the Args section is detailed. No redundant sentences.

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 presence of an output schema, the description explains the return value. It covers all parameters and provides examples. It could mention error handling or specific constraints, but overall it is complete for a composition 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by adding examples and explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'description of the music', 'e.g. 30000 for 30s', 'API default when omitted'). It adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 it composes music from a text prompt and identifies the source (ElevenLabs Music). It distinguishes from sibling tools like text_to_speech, sound_effects, etc., by specifically focusing on music composition.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., sound_effects, text_to_speech). Usage is implied through the task description, but no when-not-to-use or alternative references are given.

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