load_sound

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that an existing same plugin is reused, that a new plugin is added otherwise, that instrument sounds replace a different instrument, and that the operation is undoable. It omits error/auth behavior (e.g., what happens if the named sound doesn't exist), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the conditional behaviors following. No filler, though the second sentence is somewhat dense with three separate behavioral clauses.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral quirks and undoability. Missing only failure modes and any note on track/master targeting precedence, which is minor given the schema's parameter descriptions.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description only adds context for replace_instrument (its effect on instrument sounds); fx, track, and new_track get no extra meaning from the description.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Recalls a saved sound'), which is unambiguous about what the tool does. It does not explicitly name siblings like save_sound or list_sounds, but the action verb 'recall/load' clearly separates it from the save/list/update/delete_sound family.

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 explains the loading conditions (plugin reuse vs. addition, instrument replacement) but never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as apply_track_template or audition_instrument, nor the prerequisite of first finding a name via list_sounds. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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