fmod_studio_application_filePath

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that the tool can modify a critical system path, potential side effects of setting the value, or required permissions. The tag [property] is insufficient.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is concise, but could include a brief note about the parameter behavior without bloating.

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 1-parameter property tool with schema coverage, the description is adequate but missing behavioral and usage context. It does not mention return type or that both reading and writing are possible, which are needed for full completeness.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema's description for the only parameter ('value') is clear. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score applies.

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 tool returns the absolute file path of the FMOD Studio executable. It identifies the resource and verb (property access), but does not explicitly mention that it can also set the value, which the schema supports. The [property] tag helps but is not part of the prose.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fmod_get_property or fmod_set_property. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for setting, or comparison to other property tools.

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