sound

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'resolve' without explaining what that entails (e.g., does it modify state? require authorization? revertible?). The presence of an idempotency key (key param) hints at safe retries, but this is neither stated nor elaborated. The description fails to clarify whether the tool is read-only or mutating, a critical gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence of 17 words. Every phrase ('resolve the sound plan', 'music lane', 'level', 'loudness target') directly contributes to understanding. No fluff or redundancy. Excellent conciseness for a tool with 5 parameters.

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?

Despite good parametric documentation in the schema, the description omits crucial details: what the tool returns (no output schema), the nature of 'resolve' (analysis vs. mutation), edge cases (e.g., out-of-bounds music level is refused, not clamped), and required permissions. For a tool with no annotations and moderate complexity, this brief description leaves an agent underinformed.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'the music lane, its level, and the loudness target', which maps to music, music_level_millibel, and target_loudness, reinforcing their roles. However, it does not explain parameters beyond what the schema already states (e.g., 'key' for idempotency, 'sheet' as the cut sheet handle). No new semantic value is provided.

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 tool's purpose: resolving a sound plan for a cut sheet, specifying the music lane, its level, and loudness target. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'hear' or 'preview' which likely involve playback or review, not planning. However, the verb 'resolve' is somewhat vague—could mean compute, finalize, or apply—reducing precision.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'draft', 'apply', or 'hear'. The description implies use when setting up a sound plan, but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or typical workflows. Without this, an agent may misuse the tool in contexts better served by a sibling.

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