music_plan_production

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares 'Side effects: none; this tool never reaches Live' and explains the tool is not backed by a language model, reading only literal prompt content. This discloses safety and determinism, though it doesn't say whether the call is idempotent or what the unresolved list's shape is.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and structured with side-effect, example, and edge-case labels. Every line earns its place, with only minor redundancy between 'never reaches Live' and 'no language model backs this tool'.

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?

For a 3-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return shape, side effects, and non-LLM behavior, but leaves parameter semantics and the exact contents of the 'unresolved' output underspecified.

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 0% across 3 params, so the description must compensate. The example touches prompt, bars, and bpm (via 'resolved tempo'), but it never explains the semantics or defaults of bpm/bars or how they interact with the section grid, leaving real gaps.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it lays a conventional section grid over a prompt and reports what is missing. This is clear and distinguishable from the get_*/generate_* siblings by its planning nature, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied through the example and the 'report what is missing' framing. It never states when to prefer this over siblings like music_generate_drum_groove or plan_user_journey, nor any exclusions.

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