play_synth

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, closed-world), so the description's burden is lower. It adds a little character detail (noise is band-passed) but says nothing about whether the call blocks for the note's duration, whether output is audio-only, or how effects apply across calls. Return values are covered by the output schema, so that gap is acceptable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The enumerated voice list is partly redundant with the schema enum, keeping it just short of ideal.

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 rich annotations, an output schema, and 80% parameter coverage, the structured fields carry most of the load. The missing piece relative to a 13-sibling audio server is how this one-shot note relates to layering, sequences, and the stop_all control.

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 80%, so the schema already documents note format, volume, duration, and the nested effects object thoroughly. The description contributes only the list of synth voices, which merely restates the enum in synth_type, adding no format or tradeoff detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Play one note on a synthesizer") with the synth voices enumerated, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not name a sibling, though the phrase "one note" implicitly separates it from play_melody and create_chord_progression without saying so.

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?

Usage is only implied: "one note" hints that melodies, chords, and sequences belong to other tools, but no alternative is named and no condition is stated. There is no guidance on when to use this versus play_example_osc or whether repeated calls layer.

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