addProjectSound

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: file size limit (under 1 MB), supported formats (MP3/M4A/AAC/WAV), timing of availability (after next assistant start), name collision behavior (code registrations win), access control (MCP grant), and error conditions (permission_denied, account_required).

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 paragraph that front-loads the main action and is well-organized. However, it is somewhat lengthy with multiple clauses. Nonetheless, every sentence contributes valuable information, so it earns a high score despite not being maximally concise.

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 tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers usage context, side effects, error handling, alternatives, and lifecycle behavior. No significant gaps remain.

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 100%, but the description adds extra context for each parameter: for 'name' it explains how it's used in app code, for 'filePath' it specifies path types (relative or absolute), and for 'appPackage' it clarifies it's the project_install_id. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 starts with a clear verb ('Upload') and resource ('local audio file into a project's named-sound library'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings like setAssistantConfig and registerSound, stating when not to use it. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('provision an app's UI sounds while building it') and when-not-to-use ('don't use for the assistant's VOICE' or 'for sounds the app should bundle locally'). Additionally, it mentions prerequisites (linked Extentos account, MCP access grant) and error responses (401, 403).

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