add_play_sound_node

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states that a node is added, without mentioning side effects, required graph selection, failure modes, or whether it connects pins. The KB reference is not in the description text. Basic action is clear, but critical behavioral details are missing.

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 description is brief and well-structured: one-line action, a compact args list, a KB pointer, and an example. No filler words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though the minimalism contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and a 0% schema description coverage, this description is incomplete. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., selected blueprint), details on node placement, and expected outcomes. The example helps, but the KB reference is external and not narrated. An agent would need to guess or consult other sources to call it correctly beyond copying the example.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides terse labels: 'Blueprint name', 'Sound asset path', 'Optional graph position'. Blueprint name is clarified by the example as a full asset path. However, sound_asset path format and node_position structure (array of numbers, what each element represents) remain ambiguous. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property titles.

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 explicitly states 'Add a Play Sound at Location node', which names the specific verb, resource, and node type. It is distinguishable from the many sibling add_*_node tools because it names the exact node. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify it operates on a Blueprint graph, relying on the tool name and context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_play_sound_at_location_node or import_sound_asset. The example shows a call but does not explain prerequisites, graph context, or when to prefer this over similar sound-related tools. Minimal usage context is implied by the description, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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