create_dialogue_wave

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description restates idempotency plus adds meaningful context: the follow-up workflow and a full return-field list (including already_existed and saved, which tell the agent how to detect a no-op). Since no output schema exists, disclosing the return shape is genuinely valuable behavioral information.

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?

Two tight sentences: creation semantics plus workflow come first, and the return shape is listed compactly. No filler, front-loaded.

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?

For an idempotent creator with no output schema, the description supplies the return contract and the post-creation step, which is everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly and know what to do next. Annotations cover the safety profile.

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 both parameters (name, package_path) are already documented in the schema with defaults. The description mentions object_path only as a return value, not a parameter, and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Create a UDialogueWave asset') with the asset class named explicitly, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling creators like create_dialogue_voice or create_sound_cue. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is precise enough to route correctly.

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?

Adds a concrete next-step instruction ('Populate ContextMappings afterwards via set_properties on object_path'), which tells the agent how this tool fits into a workflow. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool is named, so it falls short of 5.

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