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

The annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior, but the description adds no extra behavioral context such as side effects, partial update semantics, or irreversibility. It simply restates the action without enriching the agent's understanding.

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 very brief, consisting of two short sentences. It is concise and free of fluff, but the 'context: id' fragment is cryptic and not well integrated, so it is not perfectly structured.

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?

With 15 parameters and a complex update operation, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain what a sound item is, when to use this update, or how it differs from related update tools. The schema covers parameters, but the description fails to provide operational context.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the 15 parameters with detailed descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update sound item' and adds 'Update one CMS sound item by sound id,' identifying the action and the key required parameter. It is clear but does not differentiate from sibling update tools like cms_update_article, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other content-type update tools. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions that would route an agent to this tool over a sibling.

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