generate_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two useful facts beyond the schema: the model runs locally and each candidate yields one WAV path. It omits meaningful traits an agent should anticipate — generation latency/cost, model loading behavior, whether files persist, and failure modes — so coverage is partial rather than thorough.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then the return value. No filler, no restating the tool name, and every clause adds information.

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 16-parameter generative tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the return shape, and the schema documents all parameters. What is missing is operational context — expected duration/cost of a local generation run and how it relates to unload_models for memory management — which would matter for an agent planning multi-call workflows.

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 every one of the 16 parameters is already documented in the schema, including defaults per audio_type and the cfg/negative_prompt interaction. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Generate') plus the exact resource classes it produces (BGM, instrument loops/stems, sound effects) and the engine (Stable Audio 3), which cleanly separates it from the sibling edit_audio/process_audio tools that transform existing audio. The second sentence names the output shape (one WAV path per candidate), so an agent knows exactly what comes back.

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: the verb 'Generate ... from text' suggests this is for creating new audio rather than editing, but the description never says when to pick it over edit_audio or process_audio, nor does it state prerequisites such as model load time (a real concern given the unload_models sibling). The audio_type enum values in the schema effectively route the agent, but that is structured data, not description guidance.

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