video_to_music

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: API call cost, file format support, size/duration limits, licensing clearance, return type, and default output directory.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and cost warning upfront. Slightly long but no redundant sentences; all information serves a purpose.

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 optional parameters with mutual exclusion, an output schema, and moderate complexity, the description fully covers constraints, formats, licensing, and output, leaving no critical gaps.

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%, but the description adds detailed semantics for all four parameters: path details, URL requirement, style hint for prompt, default for output_directory. Also specifies that exactly one of video_path/video_url is required.

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 an original score for a video, explaining how Sonilo analyzes pacing, motion, and emotion. It differentiates from sibling tools like text_to_music by focusing on video input.

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?

Explicitly states to use only when explicitly requested by the user due to cost. Provides mutual exclusivity rule for video_path/video_url. However, no direct comparison to alternatives like text_to_sfx.

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