add_metasound_graph_output

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false): it discloses the undo-transaction/save side effects, the name-collision behavior (added=false/already_exists=true and no save for same data_type; error for a different one), the PIE save-failure path surfaced via success=false and save_error. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and default before branching into error and collision cases; every sentence carries information. It is dense and slightly long, but nothing is 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description inlines the full return shape (asset_path, output_name, data_type, added, already_exists, saved, save_error), plus inverse tool, side effects, and error paths. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret results.

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, but the description adds real value by expanding data_type beyond the schema's bare 'default Audio' note, listing Float, Int32, Bool, String and Trigger as valid values, and flagging that an unregistered type is an error.

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?

States a specific verb (add), resource (graph output), and target (an existing MetaSound Source), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling add_metasound_graph_input by naming the opposite operation and its inverse remove_metasound_graph_output. An agent can differentiate it without opening the schema.

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?

Provides clear context: it operates through the MetaSound builder inside an undo transaction and then saves. It names the inverse tool and enumerates error preconditions (unregistered data_type, source that fails to load). It stops short of explicit when-to-use-vs-input guidance, but the context is strong.

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