payware_products_register_audio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false. The description adds real context beyond that: the plan-gated 403 failure mode, accepted formats, the 100 MB / 2–120 second constraints, and that video containers only register the audio channel. It does not address what happens on duplicate registration, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

The structure is sensible: precondition first, then purpose, then format constraints, with no filler sentences. The bolded format block is dense but each item (formats, size, duration, video handling) is actionable information rather than padding.

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 mutating registration call with no output schema, the description never indicates what comes back — notably whether an audio identifier is returned for later update/delete calls. Combined with silence on duplicate handling, an agent has enough to invoke the tool but not enough to chain it reliably.

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 100%, so every parameter including audioPath, productId, partnerId, privateKey, and useSandbox is already documented. The description's format and duration limits implicitly constrain audioPath, but it adds no meaning to productId, partnerId, privateKey, or useSandbox beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 and resource: 'Register an audio file (soundbite) for a product to enable audio-based payment initiation.' That is unambiguous about what the call does and why it exists. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing 'register' from the sibling 'payware_products_update_audio', which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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?

It states a hard eligibility precondition — PRM plan only, otherwise the server returns 403 — which is genuinely useful for avoiding a doomed call. However, it gives no guidance on when to register versus update an existing audio, or how this relates to 'payware_products_get_audios', so the alternative-selection question is left to inference.

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