audio_artifact_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects and constraints. It mentions 'validate' but does not clarify what validation entails, whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects on the session/evidence. The agent is left unaware of what happens beyond the vague promise of creating an artifact.

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 a single, efficiently written sentence that front-loads the core action. It avoids fluff. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, which slightly penalizes the conciseness score (though the sentence structure itself is clean).

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?

This is a complex tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only a high-level purpose, omitting essential details like what 'evidence' refers to, how parameters interact, what the artifact format is, and what 'validation' performs. It is grossly incomplete for an agent to safely and correctly invoke this tool, especially given the broad sibling context.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the 6 parameters (sweeps, filters, session, analyses, provenance, verification). The schema itself is minimal (mostly empty objects with additionalProperties), so the description provides no compensation. An agent cannot know what each parameter means or which are necessary beyond 'session' being required by the schema.

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 clear action ('create and validate') on a specific resource ('versioned, replayable calibration artifact'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like audio_artifact_validate and audio_artifact_migrate, though it does not explicitly name them. The phrase 'from supplied evidence' adds context about the input nature, making the purpose understandable.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as audio_artifact_validate or audio_artifact_migrate. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it. The description leaves the agent to infer usage, which is inadequate given the large set of similar audio artifact tools.

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