generate_bgm

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the internal pipeline (DeepSeek analysis, Soundraw API mapping), returns (audio URL, share link, integration code), and the generation process. This provides meaningful transparency beyond a simple 'generate music' statement, though cost or external dependencies are not mentioned.

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?

The description is three sentences: purpose, process, outputs. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no extraneous information. 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers returns. All 7 parameters have schema descriptions. However, missing context about prerequisites (authentication, account), limits, or side effects. Sibling tool integration is not addressed.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters are used (DeepSeek maps scene to Soundraw params) and listing return fields not in schema. This enriches understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 background music for a game scene, naming a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_bgm_variations (which gets existing variations) and scene_transition_music (for transitions) by focusing on generating new 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?

The description implies use for generating background music but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_bgm_variations or scene_transition_music. No context on prerequisites or conditions is provided.

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