sound_audition_in_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one key behavior: 'without changing the project', which signals a non-destructive operation. However, it omits other potentially important behaviors such as whether playback is triggered, whether the audition is synchronous, or any side effects beyond project state. This is partial transparency for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentence that immediately states the purpose and the key constraint (non-destructive). It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of the nested plugin object with many optional fields, the lack of schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to specify the preset, what the plugin object represents, or what the tool returns. An agent would need to infer too much about the required parameters and behavior.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. The description does not explain project_id, track_id, or the plugin object structure (including preset_id, automation, parameters, etc.). It only says 'preset' and 'MIDI part', which gives no insight into the required fields. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Audition'), a resource ('preset on an existing MIDI part'), and a clear scope ('in context without changing the project'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like sound_search (searching) or sound_probe (probing) by focusing on non-destructive auditioning of a preset on a MIDI part.

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 the tool is for previewing a preset in a specific context without altering the project, which gives some guidance on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between this and similar tools like sound_probe or sound_assess.

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