ms_audition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states nothing about what auditioning does behaviorally: whether it starts audio playback, produces side effects, requires an open editor, or how playback is terminated. For a playback-triggering tool, this is a significant 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?

One-line purpose followed by a compact arg note; nothing is wasted and the core action is front-loaded. The 'Args:' block is slightly mechanical but efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a playback-initiating tool with no annotations, the description omits prerequisites (open editor/asset context) and the relationship to ms_stop_audition, leaving the agent with partial operational context.

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% and the single parameter has no description in the schema, so the description compensates by explaining that 'name' is an optional audition target and that empty means the current graph. This clarifies the default behavior meaningfully.

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 (preview/audition) and resource (the current MetaSounds graph), and 'in the editor' indicates the environment. It does not name the obvious counterpart ms_stop_audition, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage by clarifying 'current graph' vs a named asset, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (editor must be open), and no mention of the alternative ms_stop_audition for ending playback.

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