create_custom_sound

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It describes the creation of audio and lists parameters, but it does not mention what the function returns (nothing expected) or the side effect of saving to a file. It lacks details on required permissions, whether the output is immediately audible, or if existing files are overwritten. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences: first states core purpose, second enumerates parameter categories. No redundant or vague phrasing. Every sentence adds value, and key details are 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?

Given the complexity (8 nested parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the synthesis domain but omits the filepath parameter and any return value information. It assumes familiarity with sound synthesis terminology (e.g., attack, sustain). An AI agent might need more explanation of how parameters interact or typical values.

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 baseline is 3. The description groups parameters into categories (waveform, frequency, envelope, vibrato) adding some semantic grouping beyond raw schema fields. However, it does not explain numeric ranges or the mapping of parameters to sound characteristics, which would enhance 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 the tool creates completely custom retro sound effects with full control over synthesis parameters. It lists the specific parameter groups (waveform, frequency, envelope, vibrato), distinguishing it from siblings like create_sound_with_wave (which likely offers simpler presets) and generate_sound_effect (which may be more automated).

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 implies that this tool is for full custom control (as opposed to simpler generation), but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like create_sound_with_wave or generate_named_sound. No direct exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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