Generate sound effect

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds nothing beyond that: no latency, cost, async/job behavior, or output format context. For a generative tool with an output schema it could still note operational traits, but it repeats only the structured fields.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no waste, and the key information is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though it is so short that it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

The output schema covers return values and the tool only has two parameters, so the description needn't explain much. However, given three audio-generating siblings and an undocumented parameter, an agent lacks the routing and parameter guidance needed to call this confidently.

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 only 50%: the prompt parameter is documented in the schema and echoed by the description ('text prompt'), but durationSeconds has no description anywhere and the description does not compensate with range or default information. The description adds no 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate a sound effect') plus the input modality ('from a text prompt'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not differentiate itself from the closely related siblings generate_music and text_to_speech, which is the only gap.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over generate_music or text_to_speech, despite both being present in the sibling list and producing audio. Usage is only implied by the name.

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