delete_sound

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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already declares this is a destructive operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds the useful irreversibility note ('can't be undone'), which reinforces permanence beyond the annotation's binary flag. However, it says nothing about side effects (e.g., whether the sound must be unused) or required permissions.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the critical warning. Zero filler.

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?

For a single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover the essentials: what it does, that it is destructive, and that it is irreversible. Only edge-case behavior (e.g., deleting a sound still referenced by a project) is unaddressed.

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 100% — the single 'name' parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'The sound's exact name.' The description only references 'a sound from the library' and adds no matching or syntax detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Deletes a sound from the library.' An agent can immediately tell what it does. It stops short of naming or contrasting with siblings like update_sound or delete_drum_map, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 mention of alternatives. The destructive framing implies caution, but the description never states conditions or prerequisites for deletion.

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