game_audio_bus_layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys structural mutation (create/remove/reorder/routing) but never reveals side effects such as what happens to existing sends when a bus is removed, whether reordering reroutes audio, or what list returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, richer behavioral disclosure is expected.

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 seven-word sentence with zero filler and the key verbs front-loaded, making it highly efficient. It does not earn a 5 because the terseness sacrifices useful detail, such as the list action and the meaning of set_send, which would make the description overly minimal rather than genuinely complete.

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 4-parameter, 5-action mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, one short sentence is insufficient. The list action is absent from the description, the move semantics depend on the index parameter without explanation, and the routing behavior of set_send is undefined, leaving an agent guessing about return values and consequences.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds marginal value by linking natural-language verbs (create/remove/reorder/routing) to the action enum values (add/remove/move/set_send), but it adds nothing about index, sendTo, or busName semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses specific verbs (create/remove/reorder) with a specific resource (audio buses and routing), and it maps cleanly onto the schema's action values (add, remove, move, set_send, list). It is clear enough to be distinguished from structural siblings like game_audio_bus, game_audio_play, and game_audio_effect, though it never names an alternative explicitly. It stops short of a 5 because its multi-action framing is broad and it does not state what it is not.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus game_audio_bus (bus settings), game_audio_play (playback), or game_audio_effect (effects). The action list in the schema implies use cases, but the description itself offers no context, no exclusions, and no alternatives, leaving an agent to infer selection criteria.

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