soundboard_modify_guild_sound

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

Annotations already indicate mutating, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying that only metadata is modified, fields omitted remain unchanged, and the updated object is returned. This goes beyond the annotation hints without contradicting them.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded purpose, no fluff. The return type is briefly summarized, and the description earns its place with actionable guidance.

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 annotations, output schema, and self-explanatory parameters, the description covers the core behavior, update semantics, and return value. It lacks explicit permission/error details, but that is not essential for this straightforward modification tool.

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 low (43%), but parameter names are largely self-explanatory (name, volume, emoji_id, emoji_name). The description adds the key partial-update instruction, but does not explain nullable fields or other constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('Modify') and resource ('guild soundboard sound's metadata'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/delete/get/send. It also clarifies partial update semantics with 'Pass only fields you want to change.'

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 purpose statement and partial-update note imply when to use: when existing sound metadata needs changing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear from the description and sibling list.

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