create-sounds

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: x/y are absolute canvas pixels, radius is in grid-distance units, optional parameters like walls (muffle through walls), easing (fade by distance), darkness activation range (night-only sounds), listener effects (baseEffect/muffledEffect), and that a 404 path warns but keeps. It also states the return behavior ('Returns created ids').

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 a single paragraph that is both comprehensive and concise. It front-loads the main purpose and example, then covers essential details without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (many optional parameters, nested array input, no output schema), the description covers all critical aspects: input structure, key unit distinctions, behavior of each option, and return value. It is complete without needing an output schema.

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 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: clarifies units for radius (grid-distance vs. pixels), explains the purpose of walls, easing, darknessMin/darknessMax, baseEffect/muffledEffect, and default values (volume 0.5, repeat false). This enriches the agent's understanding.

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 'Place one or more positional AMBIENT SOUNDS on a scene' and provides concrete examples (crackling hearth, waterfall). It distinguishes from a sibling tool by noting 'Distinct from a scene playlist: this is a point emitter players walk into.' This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 explicitly marks the tool as 'GM-only' and mentions that a 404 audio path 'keeps the path but warns'. It contrasts with scene playlist implicitly, but does not provide extensive when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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