wwise_create_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the on_conflict modes (merge, rename, replace, fail), including that replace implies overwriting. However, it does not describe permissions, reversibility, whether the parent path must already exist, or other side effects of this mutation.

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 and then uses a compact args list. Every sentence and parameter entry adds useful information, with no fluff.

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. The parameter documentation is sufficient for invocation, but for a no-annotation mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, context is missing about prerequisites, side effects, and when to choose this over sibling creation tools.

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 does this well: parent_path format and example, object_type examples, name, and on_conflict enum values are all documented. The object_type list ends with "etc.," leaving some ambiguity, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 Wwise object in the hierarchy." This is clear enough that an agent knows what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate this general object-creation tool from siblings like wwise_create_event or wwise_create_game_parameter, so it falls 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, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternative creation tools such as wwise_create_event. Usage is only implied by the verb "Create."

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