configure_audio_3d

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, destructive, idempotent, closed-world mutation. The description goes beyond them by disclosing what is actually changed (spatialization and an attenuation override), that 'Disabled' turns both off, that state is read back via audio_3d_configured, and that falloff/cone values are only descriptive. It stops short of stating permission needs or persistence/save behavior.

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 action and its effects, then the read-back semantics, and only then the return block. The prose is dense but every sentence carries information; the long Returns enumeration is justified because no output schema exists, though it is close to a raw field dump.

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 no output schema, the description absorbs that burden by enumerating the returned fields and their meaning, and it explains the mutation and preset semantics. It omits only peripheral details such as valid component-name sources and failure behavior for a missing component.

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 some meaning (what a preset actually does, and that 'Disabled' suppresses both features) but the radius/distance discussion refers to read-back fields, not to the two actual parameters, so it does not deepen parameter handling beyond the schema.

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 and resource: applies a 3D audio preset to an audio component, and enumerates exactly what that touches (spatialization plus an attenuation override sphere). It is precise enough to picture the effect, but it never names or contrasts against the closest siblings (set_sound_attenuation_properties, get_audio_component_properties), so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it configures a component's 3D preset, and the note that 'Disabled' turns both features off hints at a use case. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to or away from the attenuation/property siblings.

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