Audio Manage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses atomic playback updates, the duration_seconds return value, non-undoable preview play/stop, supported resource extensions, and project-wide scanning. However, it does not explain the persistence or undo behavior of scene-mutating ops like player_create or player_set_stream, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 compact, well-organized reference: a domain-scoping first line, a bulleted op list with signatures, and a canonical call-shape note. Every line carries information, and the monospace formatting makes it easy for an agent 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?

For a multi-op tool with no annotations and an open-ended params object, the description covers operation selection, parameters, defaults, constraints, resource types, and relevant return behavior. The canonical call shape and compatibility alias note complete the invocation picture, while the output schema covers return shapes.

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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate, and it largely does with op signatures, defaults, allowed type values, and required-field rules. It lacks some finer semantics such as volume_db units, bus constraints, or path validity rules, but it meaningfully documents the intended sub-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 opening line scopes the tool to sound effects, music, and ambience, and the op list names concrete resources (AudioStreamPlayer/2D/3D, AudioStream resources). Each op uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose clear and distinct from broad siblings like node_manage or resource_manage.

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?

Each op describes a specific usage scenario: create a player, assign a stream, update playback properties, play/stop preview, or scan resources. The description also gives constraints like 'at least one of volume_db/pitch_scale/autoplay/bus required' and 'Not undoable' for preview playback. It does not explicitly exclude generic sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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