assign_sample_file

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the core assignment action but does not explain whether existing clip assignments are overwritten, what happens if the track has no clips, or any side effects of this mutating operation.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose, path guidance, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool, the essential call information is present, and an output schema exists. However, behavioral gaps remain—overwrite semantics, failure behavior, and prerequisites for the sample track—so the definition is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, but the description adds meaningful parameter context: track_index is the sample track index, and file_path supports WAV/OGG/MP3/FLAC with relative or absolute path guidance. This goes beyond the bare schema types and titles.

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's specific action: assigning an audio file to all clips on a sample track. This is distinct from sibling tools like place_sample_clip, which likely places individual clips, and add_sample_track, which creates tracks.

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 on how paths should be specified: relative paths for built-in samples and absolute paths for external files. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'all clips on a sample track' scope makes the intended use reasonably clear.

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