ms_convert_to_preset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavioral traits: the builder's graph becomes read-only, inherits the referenced asset's topology, and only exposed input defaults can be overridden. It does not cover permissions, side effects like saving, or failure modes, so it falls 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then adds behavioral constraints, then documents the argument. It is appropriately sized and every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 the description need not explain return values. Given that, it covers the key behavioral change and the single parameter well, but lacks prerequisites such as whether a builder must be open or selected, and does not route to alternatives like ms_preset_swap.

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 for the single parameter. It does so by explaining that referenced_asset is a 'Content path of the source MetaSound' and giving an example path, which is enough to use the parameter correctly. It stops short of stating format constraints or whether the asset must already exist.

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 states a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('current MetaSounds builder to a preset of a referenced asset'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not differentiate against similar siblings such as ms_preset_swap or ms_preset_morph, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It implies action on 'the current MetaSounds builder' but leaves the agent to infer context and compare with related preset and graph tools on its own.

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