wwise_create_game_parameter

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this creates a GameParameter and that binding is a separate operation, which is useful. However, it does not cover permission requirements, connection prerequisites, duplicate-name behavior, or mutation side effects beyond creation.

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 purpose, followed by an important usage note and then parameter definitions. It is generally efficient, though the first two sentences repeat the creation action slightly ("Create a Game Parameter... Creates the GameParameter object").

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 details are unnecessary, and the description adequately covers purpose, binding alternative, and parameter meanings. For a creation tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, it is nearly complete, though it could mention prerequisites such as Wwise connection or duplicate-name handling.

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 all four parameters. It gives brief meanings for name, min_value, max_value, and default_value, including an example for name, but does not explain value constraints, units, or the relationship between default and range values.

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 (Create) and resource (Game Parameter / RTPC) in Wwise, and explicitly distinguishes the tool from binding operations by pointing to execute_waapi for RTPC curve binding. An agent can identify this tool's unique scope without opening the schema.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool (creating the GameParameter object) and names an alternative (execute_waapi or GUI) for the separate binding step. It does not explicitly state when not to create a game parameter or compare against sibling creators like wwise_create_object, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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