update_sound

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the mutation itself: no note on permission requirements, whether the rename breaks existing references, whether omitted fields are left untouched, or what the result looks like. It only implicitly signals a partial update.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, front-loading the rename action. It is well sized for what it says, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 40% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It should at minimum clarify the name/new_name relationship and confirm that unspecified fields are preserved.

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 coverage is only 40%; 'name' and 'new_name' carry no schema descriptions, and the description does not resolve the critical ambiguity between them ('name' as the lookup key vs 'new_name' as the replacement value). The schema documents 'Replace all tags' and 'Add these tags', but the description leaves the most consequential parameter distinction unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Renames a saved sound') and enumerates the mutable fields (tags, description), which clearly separates it from load_sound, save_sound, and delete_sound. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the operation 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 guidance on when to use this versus save_sound or load_sound, no mention that the target sound must already exist and be referenced by 'name', and no preconditions or alternatives. The agent must infer everything from the verb.

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