audio_manage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It notes that play and stop are 'Not undoable' and for 'editor preview playback,' and mentions return values for set_stream. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., persistence, permissions, or whether operations are destructive beyond that). More comprehensive behavioral context would improve transparency.

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 well-structured with a brief intro and bullet-point list of operations. Each op is described concisely. It is appropriately front-loaded. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient and readable.

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's complexity with multiple sub-operations and free-form parameters, the description covers each op's parameters and key behaviors. It mentions return values for set_stream and undoability for play/stop. It lacks some context like error handling or default values, but is fairly complete for a tool of this nature.

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 params object is a generic free-form container. The description compensates by detailing each operation's parameters (e.g., parent_path, name, type, volume_db, pitch_scale, etc.) and constraints (e.g., at least one of volume_db/pitch_scale/autoplay/bus required). This adds significant meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool manages sound effects, music, and ambience via AudioStreamPlayer nodes. It lists specific operations and distinguishes it from sibling tools which cover entirely different domains (animation, camera, etc.). The verb 'manage' plus the resource type 'audio' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools are all different domains, the description does not provide criteria for choosing audio_manage over other tools or explain when not to use it. Each operation has usage details, but overall usage context is implied rather than stated.

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