Roblox MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits but fails to do so. It does not explain whether 'stop' destroys the Sound instance or merely halts playback, whether changes are persistent, or what happens when 'play' creates a new Sound (as hinted in the schema).

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 extremely compact at one sentence. While efficient, the '[PRO]' prefix is unexplained metadata that slightly obscures the purpose, and 'Set audio listener' breaks the parallel verb structure established by the previous items (play, stop, pause, resume).

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—8 parameters across 5 distinct operational modes with conditional parameter requirements—the description is insufficient. It does not address the multi-modal nature (sound playback vs. listener configuration) or acknowledge that certain parameters are only valid for specific actions, leaving this critical context buried in schema field descriptions.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with detailed parameter explanations (including which action uses each parameter), so the description appropriately does not duplicate this information. However, the description adds no supplementary context about parameter relationships or valid combinations.

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 identifies the resource (audio) and specific operations (play, stop, pause, resume, set audio listener) using concrete verbs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'manage_effects' or clarify whether this handles sound file playback, audio effects, or both.

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 enumerates available actions but provides no guidance on when to use specific actions (e.g., 'pause' vs 'stop') or prerequisites for calling the tool. There is no mention of when to use 'set_listener' versus other actions, or any alternative tools to consider.

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