update-sounds

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: partial updates (patches only passed fields), error handling (unresolved ids reported not fatal), and permission (GM-only). Could add details on concurrency or reversibility but sufficient.

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 well-structured sentence that fronts the core purpose and lists key capabilities without fluff. Every part earns its place.

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 complex tool with many fields and no output schema, the description explains what can be edited and the patching pattern. It misses details on return values (e.g., confirmation or updated objects), but overall is complete enough for use.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds context beyond schema by explaining how fields are used (e.g., 'MOVE via x/y') and the patching behavior.

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 it edits placed ambient sounds by id, lists specific editable fields (x/y, radius, path, volume, etc.), and distinguishes from sibling tools like create-sounds and delete-sounds.

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?

It specifies using ids from list-sounds, mentions unresolved ids are non-fatal, and that it's GM-only. However, it could be more explicit about when to use this vs other editing tools like update-tiles.

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