generate_sound_candidates

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

It discloses asynchronous execution, realistic side effects, and the four-candidate count, beyond the sparse false-valued annotations. However, it doesn't state what happens on repeated calls, whether the previous generation is replaced, or any rate-limit/cost externalities, so transparency is incomplete.

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 with no filler; the action is front-loaded and the follow-up instruction is placed at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With seven parameters, no output schema, and annotations that add little guidance, this terse description is not enough for reliable invocation. It captures the workflow but omits parameter meaning, output/result behavior, and side-effect details.

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% and the description never mentions any parameter, not even required prompt and sound_type. The agent must rely on raw property names, enums, and defaults with no explanatory guidance.

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 opens with a specific action ('Start one real asynchronous AudioMade generation') and pins the expected outcome ('exactly four candidates'), making the tool's role clear. It also references the downstream get_sound_candidates call, which distinguishes it from sibling retrieval/selection tools.

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?

It gives an explicit workflow: start generation, continue implementation while it renders, then call get_sound_candidates. This tells the agent when to invoke the tool against the main alternative, though it doesn't spell out when not to use it or list other alternatives.

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