save_sound

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a write operation, yet it says nothing about name collisions (only the schema's overwrite flag hints at them), where sounds are stored, permissions, or what a subsequent load looks like. It adds the useful context that the capture works around REAPER's preset blindness, but that is descriptive value, not behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its destination, then a single qualifying clause about plugin-own browsers. Zero filler and every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core intent but omits what happens on a duplicate name, whether the operation is reversible, and what the user gets back. It is adequate but leaves the agent guessing on operational consequences.

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 all six parameters — including fx, name, tags, track, overwrite, and description — are already documented in structured fields. The description adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Saves the plugin's current sound to the user's sound library') and immediately explains the scope ('loaded on any track in any project'), which separates it from save_drum_map, save_motif, and save_track_template. The added note about plugin-own preset browsers adds a crisp distinguishing detail.

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 sentence about Arturia-style preset browsers implies the scenario where this tool is the only option, giving some when-to-use context. However, it never names the obvious alternatives (update_sound, load_sound, save_track_template) or states when NOT to use it, so routing still requires inference.

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