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

The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: the pack is synthesized, licence-free, requires no API key, and has no download wait. It also discloses that copied files are named `sfx-<id>.wav` at the Library root, each result returns a `mediaRef`, and adding an existing sound is an idempotent no-op returning the existing reference, consistent with `idempotentHint: true`.

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 front-loaded, starting with the built-in pack and its differentiator before moving to catalogue and copy behavior. Every sentence contributes operational information with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description adequately explains both return modes: catalogue entries with sound descriptions and usage guidance, or copied media results with `mediaRef` values. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the description fills in the remaining behavioral 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description still adds useful semantic context by explaining that omitting `ids` lists the catalogue while supplying `ids` copies sounds into the media pool and returns `mediaRef` values, though it does not separately elaborate on the `id`, `token`, or `projectId` parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: adding sounds from Frapea's built-in sound-effects pack into the project media pool. It explicitly distinguishes this from search_sounds, which is reserved for ambience, foley, and real-world object sounds not covered by the pack.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: call with no `ids` to retrieve the catalogue, and call with `ids` to copy sounds into the media pool. It also names the alternative tool (`search_sounds`) and the conditions that select it, plus the downstream workflow with `add_clips`.

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