soundboard_modify_guild_sound

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

Annotations already cover readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: only supplied fields are changed, and the updated object's fields are returned. It does not mention audit-reason logging or permission prerequisites, but given annotation coverage this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

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 compact labeled sections, purpose first, with no filler. The 'Pass only fields you want to change.' sentence is high-value and the return summary is useful without over-explaining.

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 simple patch-style tool with an output schema and annotations covering mutation and idempotency, the description is sufficiently complete: it gives purpose, patch behavior, and return shape. Missing explicit sibling comparisons are a usage-guideline nuance rather than a completeness gap.

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?

With only 43% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining that only provided fields are modified and by listing the mutable metadata fields in the return shape. However, it does not add meaning for specific constraints on `name`, `volume`, or `emoji_name` 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?

States a clear verb+resource: 'Modify a guild soundboard sound's metadata.' The `modify` verb and `metadata` scope differentiate it from siblings such as `soundboard_create_guild_sound`, `soundboard_delete_guild_sound`, and `soundboard_send_sound` without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 clearly frames the use case: changing metadata of an existing guild sound, and adds the patch-style instruction 'Pass only fields you want to change.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over create/delete/send siblings.

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