Save a sound synthesis spec or existing render as a named preset in your library for reuse in future sound design.
Save a spec (inline, or from a render id) to the user preset library under a name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| spec | No | ||
| out_dir | No | ||
| sound_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that it 'saves' and mentions the source modes, but it does not explain side effects like overwriting, naming conflicts, required authentication, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. No word is wasted, and it provides the two source modes without unnecessary detail.
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 lack of annotations, empty schema descriptions, and four parameters with alternative modes, this description is too short to be complete. It does not explain the difference between inline spec, render id, out_dir, or how they interact. The output schema exists, so return value explanation is not needed, but the usage logic and parameter relationships remain unclear.
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%, so the description must compensate. It reveals that 'spec' can be inline or sourced from a render id, but does not map the render id to a specific parameter (sound_id vs out_dir) and leaves 'out_dir' completely unaddressed. The description adds partial meaning but not enough to disambiguate the parameters.
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 clearly states the verb (save) and resource (spec to the user preset library), which is specific and understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like sfx_render_preset, but the action of 'saving' to the preset library is distinct enough from rendering or listing presets.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about the scenario in which saving a preset is appropriate. The only implication is that you use it when you want to save a spec, but this is not even made explicit as a condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.