sfx_variations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the tool creates N randomized siblings, which variation dimensions are jittered, and the resulting ID naming convention. However, it does not mention file-writing side effects, default output location behavior, or whether existing files may be overwritten.

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?

Three dense sentences carry concrete, high-value information with no filler. The most important behavior, output naming, and configurable jitter fields are all front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description leaves a meaningful gap: it is not explicit enough about how to specify the source sound via id, path, or inline spec using the available parameters. The behavior of out_dir and count is also under-specified, which an agent needs to know before invoking a render/generation tool correctly.

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 adds meaning to 'spec' by listing spec.variation fields and clarifies source references via id/path/inline spec. However, it does not explicitly map those source forms to the actual schema parameters (sound_id vs spec), and it leaves count and out_dir semantics mostly to the schema defaults.

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 specific verb ('Render'), a clear resource ('randomized siblings of a sound'), and the intended use case ('for engine random containers'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sfx_render by focusing on sibling variation generation rather than single renders.

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 establishes a clear context: generating randomized sibling variants when engine random containers are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage from the sibling tool names.

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