Create a Sound Effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses offline-by-default procedural synthesis, that generative:true is a networked call requiring FREESOUND_API_KEY, that results are CC-licensed, that cost is budget-guarded, and what the call returns. The budget guard implies the approval gate but doesn't spell out the abort behavior.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the offline behavior, then the network branch and return contract. The long parenthetical of effect names is dense but earns its place by anchoring the valid subject space; otherwise tight.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers the return contract (file path, exact duration, license) and the safety/cost profile (network, API key, budget guard). Sufficient for correct invocation, though the approveOverBudget flow could be more explicit.

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 75%, and the description adds meaning beyond it: generative is characterized as network + Freesound + CC-licensed + budget-guarded (schema only says 'fetch a real recording'), and the style/subject intent is illustrated by the effect list. It doesn't explain what approveOverBudget does when triggered, leaving that to 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('sound effect or ambience') and enumerates concrete effect types, distinguishing it from siblings like generate_soundtrack and generate_voiceover. An agent can tell at a glance this produces SFX files, not music or speech.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context ('Use for a sound effect or ambience') and explains the branch condition that selects offline vs network mode via generative:true. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative to prefer for non-SFX audio, so it's clear but not fully routed.

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