Sound Import

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 says nothing about whether an import overwrites an existing sound with the same name, whether it mutates the project state, what permissions are required, or whether the operation is reversible — significant gaps for a write/mutation tool.

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 dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and the optional slicing modes trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical source list is slightly crowded.

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?

With 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a mutation-style operation, the description should do much more. It omits normalize, project and name semantics and any statement about effects on existing bank content, leaving an agent with an incomplete picture even though the output schema covers return values.

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, and it does add real value for three parameters: the source syntax forms, the bars format [a, b] on the project grid, and the seconds-based time slice. It leaves project, name, and especially normalize completely unexplained, so the compensation is only partial across seven 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?

States a specific verb ('Import') and resource ('audio into the bank'), which is enough to separate it from sound_make, sound_extract and audio_place. It does not, however, explicitly name which sibling to use instead in a given situation, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 lists valid source syntaxes (ref, ref:vocals, track:x, render), which is helpful, but never says when to choose sound_import over sound_make, sound_extract or audio_place, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the routing decision on its own.

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