template_footsteps

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavior burden. It usefully discloses what gets built (the object graph and per-surface random sequences), but is silent on persistence (no mention of whether it saves or requires wwise_save), what happens to pre-existing objects, permissions, or the project scope it writes into.

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 purpose, followed by a compact Args block. Slightly terse on the parameter format for surface_types, but no wasted sentences and every line earns its place.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the created-object inventory is given. However, for a multi-object creation template the description omits where the objects are placed in the project, whether saving is required, and how existing structures are handled, leaving real gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It successfully clarifies that surface_types is a JSON array of surface type names (the schema types it merely as a string with a JSON-looking default, which could mislead) and explains the conditional meaning of with_switch_group. Both parameters are covered.

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 (Create) and a precise resource (a surface-switched footstep system), then enumerates the exact object hierarchy produced (SwitchGroup + SwitchContainer + per-surface RandomSeq + Event). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like template_gunshot, template_ambient, and template_ui_sound.

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 with_switch_group note ('set false if it already exists') implies the re-run/incremental scenario, which is useful context, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this template over the other template_* siblings or any prerequisites (connected project, save afterwards).

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