wwise_fix_all

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it renames whitespace names, adds events to default_bank, sets default_bus, and only reports issues needing human intervention. The dry_run parameter behavior is explained. Lacks details on potential side effects like overwriting.

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?

Two sentences effectively convey the tool's purpose, behavior, and workflow. No superfluous words, front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers main behavior and workflow. It could mention that fixes are project-wide, but overall sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains dry_run, default_bank, and default_bus. However, the 'fixes' parameter is not mentioned, leaving its purpose unclear. The description adds value for three of four parameters.

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 clearly states the tool audits and auto-fixes specific issues (whitespace names, events not in SoundBank, sounds with no Output Bus). It distinguishes from sibling tools like wwise_audit and wwise_rename by combining audit with automatic fixes.

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 provides a clear workflow: run dry_run=True first to preview, then dry_run=False to apply. It implies usage vs. alternatives (e.g., wwise_audit for auditing only) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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