audio_preset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool writes a WAV file to a path and returns a dict with success status and output_path, plus defaults for pitch/duration/intensity. It does not explain the overwrite safety behavior, what happens if an existing file is present, or what occurs when output_path is omitted (nullable in schema), leaving meaningful mutation-side behavior undisclosed.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then provides the preset catalog as a scannable categorized list, followed by conventional Args and Returns sections. Every block earns its place; the formatting is dense but appropriate. Slightly verbose in restating defaults that also appear in the schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return explanation is optional and the brief note is harmless. Preset naming, pitch values, and intensity range are all resolved in-description, which is exactly what a low-coverage schema needs. The only material omission is overwrite/file-collision behavior, a moderate but not crippling gap for a local file-writing tool.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it supplies the full enumerated preset catalog (the schema has no enum), the allowed pitch values low/mid/high (also not in schema), the 0-1 range for intensity, and that duration is in seconds and output_path must be absolute. Only the overwrite parameter is undocumented in the description (covered by the schema itself).

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Generate preset sound design elements,' immediately clarified as 'Pre-configured sound effects for common use cases.' The word 'preset' and the enumerated catalog of ready-made effects distinguish it conceptually from generative siblings like audio_synthesize or audio_compose, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Pre-configured sound effects for common use cases. No external audio files needed' implies when to reach for it (ready-made SFX, no source assets), which is real context. However, it never states when NOT to use it or routes the agent to an alternative such as audio_synthesize or audio_effects, so selection guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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