fmod_Event_addGameParameter

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool adds a parameter and returns a ManagedObject, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, error conditions, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal disclosure.

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 two sentences and gets to the point. The trailing '[method · Event.addGameParameter]' is slightly redundant but not harmful. It is mostly concise.

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?

Given the simple tool (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the action and return type but lacks context about what a game parameter is in FMOD and how to use the parameterDefinition parameter effectively.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the semantics of 'parameterDefinition' (which can be a string, number, or boolean).

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 clearly states the action ('Adds a game parameter') and the target ('to the event'), with the verb and resource distinguished. It also mentions the return type. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like fmod_Event_addGroupTrack or fmod_Event_addMarkerTrack, which have similar structures.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus others. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternative tools, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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