text_to_sfx

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses async behavior, potential timeout, cost implication, and return format. It also mentions error recovery with task_id. This is thorough for a mutation-like tool.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, a cost warning, and a parameter list. It is concise enough, though the parameter descriptions could be slightly more compact.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema described, the description covers usage, parameter details, async behavior, and recovery. Sibling tools provide context. No significant gaps remain.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: prompt character limit, duration range, audio_format options with default, and output_directory defaults. It adds constraints 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 the tool generates a sound effect from a text prompt and saves the audio file. It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('sound effect'), and distinguishes from siblings like text_to_music and video_to_sfx.

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 provides a cost warning and advises using only when explicitly requested. It explains async nature and recovery via get_sfx_task. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it beyond cost.

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