stop_sound

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds real context: the case-insensitive, first-component-per-actor matching, the PIE-world exclusion, and the fact that success is always true. It does not say what the stop actually disrupts in the world, but does meaningfully extend the annotations.

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 scoping, followed by useful return info and the sibling pointer. Slight redundancy between 'Returns was_playing and playing; success is always true' and the full Returns object, but overall tight.

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, so the description's explicit Returns block is necessary and present. Combined with the mutation/scope caveats and the play_sound pointer, an agent has what it needs, though nothing beyond annotations explains the destructive impact of the stop itself.

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 the schema already documents audio_component_name including case-insensitivity. The description largely restates the same matching behavior ('first audio component of each actor'), adding only marginal detail 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 ('Stop playback on an audio component of the editor world') plus the matching mechanism (object name against the first audio component of each actor). It names the sibling play_sound as the converse operation, so an agent can distinguish it from audio siblings 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to an alternative ('Start playback with play_sound') and states a scope limitation ('components in a running PIE world are not reached'). Clear context, though it does not enumerate when-not to use it beyond that PIE caveat.

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