Create soundboard sound

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are minimal, so the description carries more weight. It adds valuable behavioral context such as supported formats, maximum size/duration, and server slot limits, which are not in the annotations. It does not disclose error handling or return format, but the provided details go beyond the structured fields.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence provides useful information: the first states the purpose and constraints, the second addresses capacity.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers core usage and constraints well. It could have mentioned the return value or the default guild behavior more explicitly, but the schema covers the guild default and the overall guidance is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 60%. The description adds specific semantics for sound_url (formats, size, duration limits), but does not elaborate on name, emoji, guild, or volume. The schema already provides descriptions for emoji, guild, and volume, so the description offers modest additional value.

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 uses the specific verb 'Upload' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'soundboard sound', differentiating it from sibling tools like list/update/delete_soundboard_sound. It also specifies the source (audio URL) and the action (creating a new sound).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (creating a sound from a URL) and includes important constraints (mp3/ogg, size/duration limits) and capacity guidance (eight slots, boosts add more). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for correct usage.

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