wwise_assign_switch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one real trait — that switch_container_path is 'for context only' — and that child/switch values accept either a GUID or a path, which is useful beyond the schema. But it says nothing about side effects, whether an existing assignment is overwritten, or whether the container must pre-exist.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by an Args block; nothing is padded or repetitive. It is appropriately sized for a 3-parameter tool.

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 all parameters are covered. But for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the definition omits the operational/consequence context an agent needs before writing, leaving a real gap.

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: all three parameters are documented, including the accepted value forms (GUID or path) and the notable caveat that switch_container_path is context-only. This meaningfully exceeds what the bare schema provides, though it stays terse.

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?

Names a specific verb (Assign) and a concrete target (a child object to a switch/state value in a SwitchContainer), which is far more specific than a tautology. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with adjacent siblings like wwise_set_reference or wwise_set_property, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description stops at stating the operation and never tells the agent when this is the correct tool versus wwise_set_property/wwise_set_reference.

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