Project Add Sound

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the file-copy side effect into assets/ and warns about the silent failure mode where unsupported formats make the project refuse to load with no warning. This is high-value behavioral disclosure, though it omits details like name-conflict behavior, permissions, or error handling.

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 with no filler: the core action and side effect are front-loaded, followed immediately by the critical format warning. Every word 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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential ground: purpose, side effect, and the most damaging failure mode. The 100%-coverage schema and existing output schema fill in parameter and return semantics. Minor gaps remain around conflict handling and reversibility, but nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already documents all four parameters (file, name, path, sprite) with descriptions. The description reinforces the format restriction for file but adds little semantic value beyond what the schema provides; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Add a sound to a sprite, copying the file into the project's assets/' — which clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from removal tools like project_remove_asset and costume tools like project_add_costume. It does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sb3_add_sound sibling, so it falls just short of full clarity.

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 practical usage guidance via the format constraint ('Scratch accepts only MP3 and WAV') and implies the intended context of working with project sprites. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing against siblings such as sb3_add_sound or project_add_costume, leaving selection to inference.

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