play_sound_at_location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that no audio component is needed, but does not explain how the 'destructive' flag manifests, whether playback can be stopped, or any rate/lifetime 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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and tight. The trailing 'Returns: {...}' is a compact single-line object rather than prose, so it stays reasonably concise, though it is somewhat dense and partially duplicates what an output contract would normally carry.

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 usefully supplies the return shape (sound_path, location, rotation, volume, pitch, success), and the annotations carry the safety profile. What remains thin is guidance on stopping/replaying the sound and how this differs operationally from play_sound.

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 documents every parameter, including the important note that the rotation array form is [pitch, yaw, roll] with index 2 being roll. The description only restates the return fields (sound_path, location, rotation, etc.) and adds no parameter syntax or format 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?

The description states a specific verb (plays), resource (a sound asset), and scope (at a specific world location), and the phrase 'without requiring an audio component' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling play_sound, which likely needs such a component. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so it falls just 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?

The clause 'without requiring an audio component' implies the usage context (standalone playback), but the description never states when to choose this over play_sound or stop_sound, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is left to inference.

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