wwise_onboard_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the one-shot nature, that each step is undoable, and stage activation logic. It lacks details on auth or rate limits, but covers the core workflow well.

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 with no waste. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose and chain; the second provides critical usage guidance. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for invocation (chain, dry-run, stage activation). Missing is the return value or success/failure indication, but the description is otherwise complete 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It links parameters (conversion, container_name, output_bus, soundbank) to the pipeline stages and explains the dry_run flag and event_prefix. The object_ids parameter is not explicitly explained, but 'make these sounds playable in-game' provides context.

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 it is a one-shot pipeline to make sounds playable in-game, detailing the chain (conversion, container, events, bus, SoundBank). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wwise_create_container or wwise_soundbank_assign, which handle individual steps.

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 explicitly recommends running with dry_run=True first, then dry_run=False to execute, and clarifies that only stages with provided arguments run. It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the sibling tools are more granular, implying this is the high-level orchestration.

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