Audio Place

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 implies a mutation (creating a clip) but says nothing about undo/reversibility, permissions, or what happens if a clip already exists at the target bar. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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. But with 7 parameters at 0% coverage, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description leaves an agent without enough context to invoke a placement/mutation tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters. The description only clarifies `bar` semantics ('fractional ok'), leaving gain_db, offset_sec, length_beats, and the exact track/sound/project references completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clear verb (place), resource (bank sound), and target (track timeline as an audio clip), which distinguishes it from note-writing siblings like notes_write and from creation siblings like sound_make. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool to route the agent, 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives among the many siblings (sound_import, sound_list, notes_write). The phrase 'bank sound' implies the sound must already exist in the bank, but this prerequisite is never spelled out.

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