upload_music

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the endpoint is billed like song generation and that two paid gates apply, which maps to the allow_paid and allow_unknown_cost parameters. But it says nothing about whether the upload is persisted, what happens on cost rejection, file format/size limits, or whether the response returns an asset reference.

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 short sentences with no padding, and the cost warning is placed after the purpose statement. The phrase "the documented later inpainting workflow" is vague filler that points at unavailable documentation rather than conveying information.

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 four-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is thin: it covers the billing aspect but omits the semantics of the single required parameter and of extract_composition_plan, and never states what the tool returns after a successful upload.

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% across four parameters. The description only obliquely explains the two paid-gate booleans ("both paid gates apply"); input_path (local path vs URL, accepted formats) and extract_composition_plan are entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving the required parameter's semantics undocumented.

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 verb+resource ("Upload music") is specific, and the description distinguishes this from generate_music by framing it as feeding a later inpainting workflow. However, "the documented later inpainting workflow" is a dangling reference to documentation the agent cannot see, so the actual purpose remains only loosely defined and it is not clear why this differs from the sibling upload_asset.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need source audio for a later inpainting workflow, and note that paid gates apply. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of upload_asset as an alternative for generic asset uploads, and no prerequisites such as file format or size.

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