Adapt Audio For Cocos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects (e.g., file overwriting), idempotency, or limits. The description is purely functional with no behavioral context.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. However, it could be slightly expanded to include critical details without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters including a complex nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the conversion process, required input format, or what the resulting AudioClip entails, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 50% (name and outputDir have descriptions; inputPath and postprocess do not at top level). The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, though it implicitly refers to parameters by stating 'Convert an existing audio file'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given moderate schema coverage.

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 action ('Convert') on a specific resource ('existing audio file') to a specific target ('Cocos-ready AudioClip file'), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools that generate new assets or adapt other media types.

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 implies usage for converting existing audio files for Cocos, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like asset_forge_generate_music_loop or asset_forge_generate_sfx, nor does it provide any conditions or prerequisites.

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