metasound_create_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It is transparent that overwrite deletes an existing asset first and that save persists the package after creation, and it clarifies one_shot is only a metadata hint. It does not state the failure behavior when overwrite=false and the asset already exists, which is a minor gap.

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 and front-loaded with a clear purpose, followed by a well-structured Args block, a KB pointer, and a concrete example. Every line adds information without padding.

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 five-parameter creation tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, including default behaviors and an example. The main missing context is sibling-tool differentiation, but that is already scored under usage guidelines.

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 fully explain the parameters, and it does. Each of the five parameters gets meaningful semantic context: naming convention, Content Browser path, one_shot intent, overwrite deletion behavior, and save persistence. The example reinforces the two most important 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a MetaSound Source asset for playable procedural audio.' This is clear and distinguishable from generic creation tools, though it never names sibling tools like metasound_create_patch, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 purpose statement implies when to use the tool: whenever a MetaSound Source asset is needed for procedural audio. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not route the agent toward metasound_create_patch or audio_create_soundcue when a different asset type is needed.

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