get_bgm_variations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions generating a variation but does not explicitly state whether the original is modified, whether it is a read-only operation, or any side effects. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise, with two sentences. The first states the tool's purpose, and the second explains the two variation types. No wasted words; front-loaded with key 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the two variation modes and their usage. It could mention that length is only for similar and energy_preset/mute_stems only for customize, but the schema already does that. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond schema: it restates the two variation types and their purpose. It does not provide additional semantic details for parameters such as length, energy_preset, or mute_stems beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 a variation of an existing BGM using Soundraw, and it distinguishes between two specific variation types ('similar' and 'customize'). This verb+resource description is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like generate_bgm which creates from scratch.

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 provides clear context for when to use each variation type: 'similar' for creating a new song with similar style, 'customize' for adjusting energy or muting stems. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool (e.g., vs. generate_bgm), but the purpose implicitly guides the agent.

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