audio_create_attenuation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly documents the destructive 'overwrite' behavior ('Delete an existing asset with the same name first') and the package-saving side effect, which are the key behavioral traits an agent needs to know. It does not describe error handling or what happens when an asset exists without overwrite, but the most safety-relevant behavior is covered.

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 well structured: a one-line purpose, a compact arg list, a KB pointer, and an illustrative example. Every line earns its place, and the parameter explanations are necessary given the zero-coverage schema. No filler or redundancy.

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 8-parameter creation tool with no annotations, the description covers all parameters, documents side effects, links to a knowledge base, and provides a realistic example. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. The only noticeable gap is the absence of explicit usage conditions or failure scenarios, but the essential operational picture is complete.

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, and it does fully. Every one of the 8 parameters is given a clear semantic meaning: 'name' has a format example, 'path' clarifies Content Browser scope under /Game, and 'falloff_distance' explains what happens after radius. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema titles and defaults.

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 opens with 'Create a Sound Attenuation asset with common 3D falloff defaults', naming a specific verb, resource type, and default behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling audio asset creators like audio_create_soundcue and audio_create_concurrency, so an agent can tell them apart without opening any 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?

The phrase 'with common 3D falloff defaults' implies this is for standard attenuation setups, and the KB reference provides further context, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or comparison against alternatives such as audio_create_soundcue or metasound tools. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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