ue_import_audio

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

No annotations are provided, placing the burden on the description. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as overwrite behavior, permissions required, error handling, or side effects. It only states the basic action.

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 extremely concise at one sentence in Italian. While not verbose, it is under-specified for a tool requiring parameter clarification. It lacks structure or any elaboration beyond the core purpose.

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 tool has 2 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description should complement these. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., asset path, success status) or provide context beyond the import action. The description is insufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 clarify parameter semantics. It does not explain what the 'files' array expects (e.g., file paths or names) or how the 'destination' path is relative. The default value is mentioned in the schema but not elaborated in the description.

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 imports .wav files as SoundWave assets into the Content Browser. It specifies the file type, target asset type, and destination, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ue_import_assets and ue_create_sound_cue.

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 for importing audio files but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ue_import_assets or when not to use it. No comparative guidance is provided.

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