generate_sound_effect

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 30-second maximum and the cost/authorization requirement, but it does not explain the paid-authorization flow, unknown-cost handling, or what happens on failure.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by the key duration and cost constraints. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 nine-parameter paid generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It covers duration and cost authorization but omits parameter guidance and sibling differentiation, which are necessary for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for nine undocumented parameters. It does not explain text, filename, loop, model_id, allow_paid, allow_unknown_cost, output_format, or prompt_influence, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the bare 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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Generate one sound effect from a text prompt." It is clear what the tool produces, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling generation tools such as generate_ambient_audio or generate_music.

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 provides an important prerequisite — explicit authorization is required because cost is not estimated — but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_ambient_audio or get_sound_effect_presets. Usage is implied rather than clearly guided.

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