create_sound_class

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context via the Returns block, notably an 'already_exists' and 'created' flag, which hints the tool tolerates pre-existing assets rather than erroring. However, it does not clarify whether an existing asset is overwritten or left untouched, nor any auth/permission requirements.

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 primary action, then the optional behavior, then a structured Returns enumeration. Efficient for what it covers, though the long inline Returns block leans on the description to substitute for a missing output schema.

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 a create-mutation with no formal output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (asset_path, created, already_exists, saved, etc.), giving the agent a clear picture of results. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly complete; the only gap is the already-exists overwrite semantics.

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 schema already explains name, pitch, volume, and package_path. The description reinforces that volume/pitch are optional and that package_path defaults, but adds no syntax or unit detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Create a USoundClass asset' with the optional side effect of setting volume/pitch. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling readers like get_sound_class_properties or mutators like set_sound_class_properties. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the create-resource intent is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as set_sound_class_properties (for editing an existing class) or set_sound_class_parent. The agent must infer that this is the tool to call to create a new SoundClass rather than modify one. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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