build_audio_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well: it discloses graceful degradation across three backends, what each mode returns (created IDs, deferred MetaSounds commands, or JSON layer specs), and that offline mode is a non-mutating dry-run preview. It omits permission/connection prerequisites and whether re-running overwrites existing assets, which keeps it short of a 5.

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-loaded with the core purpose, followed by tightly scoped bullets for the degradation behavior, the pattern enumeration, and an Args block. Every sentence conveys information an agent needs to select a backend mode or fill a parameter; nothing is padding.

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 mutation-style orchestration tool with no annotations, the description covers modes, return shapes, and all parameters, and an output schema exists so return-value detail is not required. What remains thin is the prerequisite surface: it never states that Wwise/UE5 must be connected first or what happens to pre-existing assets with the same name.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: pattern is documented with concrete examples ("gunshot", "footsteps"), name is described as an asset-name prefix defaulting to the pattern name, and params_json is explained as per-layer JSON overrides with a worked example. All three parameters gain meaning not present in the bare 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 (Build) and resource (a complete 3-layer audio system spanning Wwise + MetaSounds + Blueprints) from a pattern, which distinguishes it from the single-layer siblings (wwise_create_object, ms_build_graph, bp_compile_blueprint) and even from single-template siblings like template_gunshot. An agent can tell this is the multi-layer orchestrator without opening any schema.

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 operating context by enumerating the three execution modes (full / Wwise-only / offline dry-run) and the ten available pattern names, which is directly actionable for selection. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly (e.g., 'use template_gunshot for a single-layer Wwise-only build') or stating when not to use it.

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