template_aaa_setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: separate Work Units for merge-safe version control, the rule that 'nothing goes in Default Work Unit', and the naming convention. It stops short of stating whether an existing project is overwritten, whether it is idempotent, or what connection/permissions it needs.

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 action and the key behavioral rule (merge-safe Work Units), then structured args. The naming-convention line and example earn their place by encoding a required convention. Slightly verbose, but no filler sentences.

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 not be explained, and the description covers the structural outcome plus all six inputs. What is missing for a no-annotation mutation tool is the operational envelope — prerequisites (Wwise connection), effect on pre-existing content, and whether it can be safely re-run.

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 0% — the schema only supplies titles and empty-string defaults — so the description must compensate, and it does: every one of the six params is described, each with its default value (bus masters, work-unit lists, switch/state groups, reverb buses). It clarifies that the string-typed fields take JSON, which the schema does not. Minor gap: no JSON shape example for the overrides.

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 and resource ('Create a complete AAA Wwise project structure') and names the underlying method, which distinguishes it from sibling template tools like template_ambient or template_ui_sound that build narrower scaffolds. An agent can tell this is the full-project bootstrap rather than a partial template.

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?

Usage is implied by 'complete AAA Wwise project structure' — it's the full-scaffold tool — but the description never explicitly says when to choose it over template_ambient/template_ui_sound/build_aaa_project, nor whether it should run once on a fresh project. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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