sound_plan_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says almost nothing: it does not state whether validation is read-only, what it checks for, whether it throws or returns a verdict, or whether it mutates any state. The output schema exists, so return structure is excused, but the behavior itself is 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?

One sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is arguably too terse given how much behavior is left unexplained, but there is no wasted wording to trim.

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?

A validation tool whose entire description is a single clause leaves an agent unable to predict outcomes: no mention of failure modes, severity, or what a valid plan requires. With no annotations and an undocumented parameter, more context is needed even though the output schema covers return values.

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 0% and the single 'plan' parameter has no schema description. The description partially compensates by explaining the omitted case ('a built-in minimal plan when omitted'), which is real information the schema's default:null does not convey, but it never describes the expected payload shape.

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?

Clear verb+resource: it validates a 'SoundPlan payload'. The resource is distinct from the other sound_* siblings (capabilities, voice_batch, mix_render, qa_*), so an agent can place it. It stops short of a 5 because 'SoundPlan' is a domain term never defined and the tool is not contrasted with any other validator.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no reference to an alternative tool. The only usage signal is the parenthetical about omitting the payload, which describes one call mode rather than when to choose this tool.

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