audio_create_soundcue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the destructive nature of overwrite ('Delete an existing asset with the same name first') and the save behavior. However, it does not mention failure handling, whether existing assets block creation when overwrite=false, or any required permissions.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded, followed by a compact argument list and a concrete example. Every line adds value, and the KB reference provides a pointer for deeper context without bloating the description.

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?

All five parameters are documented, an example is provided, a KB reference is linked, and an output schema exists so return-value details are not required. The only gap is the absence of usage guidance and edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens if overwrite=false and the asset already exists), which prevents a perfect score.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter in plain language: name with a concrete example (SC_Footstep_Dirt), path as a Content Browser folder under /Game, sound_wave as an optional seeding path, overwrite as deletion-first, and save as package saving. This is significantly more informative than the bare 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a SoundCue asset, optionally prewired to a SoundWave.' The resource type (SoundCue) and optional wiring to SoundWave distinguish it from sibling audio tools like audio_create_attenuation and audio_create_concurrency without ambiguity.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The description never says when to choose this over import_sound_asset, metasound_create_source, or other audio creation tools. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and purpose rather than stated.

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