metasound_compile

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does disclose the core operations (build/conform) and the optional save side effect, which is the main behavioral risk of the tool. It does not mention failure behavior, permissions, or persistence beyond save, but it is not misleading and covers the primary side effect.

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 docstring is compact and front-loaded with a one-line purpose, followed by organized Args, a KB link, and a concrete example. There is no filler or irrelevant detail; each section earns its place.

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 two-parameter compile operation with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, both parameters, and a representative example, and the output schema covers return-value details. It could say more about side effects and alternative tool selection, but nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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: it clarifies that metasound is an asset path, explains that save persists the package after build/compile, and provides a concrete example path. It does not add constraints or default-value nuance beyond the schema, but it meaningfully explains both parameters.

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 first sentence names concrete actions (build, conform, save) and a specific resource (MetaSound Source/Patch asset), so an agent can identify this as the compile/conform step distinct from create/add/connect tools. It is specific and actionable, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools.

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 description implies usage on an existing MetaSound Source/Patch asset and provides an example and KB reference, giving some contextual signal. However, it does not state when to prefer this over metasound_create_source, metasound_add_node, or other compile tools, and it gives no exclusions or prerequisite conditions.

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