game_audio_effect

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only states imperative verbs implying mutation of audio bus effects. It doesn't disclose whether changes persist, how removal behaves without an index, whether configuring requires an existing effect, or what side effects occur on the audio system. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 single sentence is efficient with zero wasted words, and the action verbs are front-loaded so an agent immediately grasps the operation scope. However, it omits the 'list' action from the schema enum, making it terse but not fully accurate in its coverage of the tool's capabilities.

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 5-parameter tool with a nested properties object and no output schema, this definition is under-specified. An agent cannot determine what 'list' returns, how index applies to add versus remove/configure, or how the properties object maps to effectType, and the description provides no disambiguation against the overlapping game_audio_bus sibling.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even with minimal param detail in the description. The phrase 'audio bus effects' does modestly help tie busName and effectType together, but the description otherwise repeats what the schema already documents rather than adding meaning.

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 concrete action verbs ('Add/remove/configure') tied to a specific resource ('audio bus effects'), which clearly differentiates it from audio siblings like game_audio_play, game_audio_bus, and game_audio_bus_layout. It loses a point because it omits the 'list' action that the schema's action enum explicitly allows, making the stated scope slightly inaccurate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus audio-related siblings such as game_audio_bus or game_audio_bus_layout, nor any distinction between when to add vs configure vs remove an effect. An agent must infer all usage context from the schema's action enum, which is insufficient for selecting among overlapping audio tools.

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