build_play_audio

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It openly discloses a key behavior: warns (never blocks) when the name is not a known audio asset for that channel. It also states the return shape ({ command, warnings? }). This is valuable beyond the schema and covers important edge-case behavior, but it does not mention other potential behaviors like validation of numeric ranges or interaction with the project state.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It includes essential behavioral details without padding, making it appropriately sized and well structured.

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?

The tool has six parameters and no output schema, but the description compensates by stating the return format ({ command, warnings? }) and the insertion pathway. It also notes the asset-checking behavior. Given that the schema covers all parameter semantics, the description is nearly complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention prerequisite project state or validation of numeric fields.

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?

The input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context about kind values (BGM/BGS/ME/SE) and name checking, but these are also implied in the schema. It does not materially enhance parameter understanding beyond schema fields.

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 builds a Play BGM/BGS/ME/SE event command for insertion via insert_event_commands. It specifies the resource (audio play command) and distinguishes it from sibling builder tools like build_show_text or build_conditional_branch by naming the exact command and insertion path.

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: to build an audio play event command for later insertion. It mentions checking against list_assets, which implies a precondition, but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions, scoring a 4.

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