metasound_create_patch

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

The description explicitly discloses the destructive overwrite behavior ('Delete an existing asset with the same name first') and the save behavior, which is valuable given annotations are absent. It doesn't specify what happens when an asset already exists without overwrite or any permissions/resource constraints, but the key configurable side effects are 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 compact: a one-line purpose, four terse parameter lines, a KB pointer, and an example. No redundant prose; the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple creation tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameters, side effects, and includes an example and KB reference. The only notable gap is lack of explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling MetaSound creation tools, plus behavior when an existing asset is present without overwrite.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining name, path, overwrite, and save in plain terms, plus a concrete example. It adds meaning beyond raw type/defaults, such as path format under /Game and the destructive nature of overwrite.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb ('Create') with a clear resource ('reusable MetaSound Patch asset for shared DSP logic'), so an agent knows exactly what object is produced. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like metasound_create_source or metasound_add_node, so differentiation is implicit rather than named.

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 alternative tools are named and no 'use this instead of X' guidance is provided. The phrase 'for shared DSP logic' implies a use case, and the KB pointer could lead to more context, but the description doesn't state when to choose this over metasound_create_source or other creation tools.

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