audio_manage

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

With no annotations, the description compensates by flagging 'Not undoable' for play/stop, noting 'real editor preview playback', and stating atomicity for player_set_playback. It could go further by disclosing side effects of create/set operations, but the provided behavioral notes are valuable.

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 description is compact and well-structured, using a bulleted list with one-line ops. Every sentence earns its place, and the canonical call-shape note is necessary for a multi-op tool. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

All six operations are documented with parameters and some return info (e.g., duration_seconds for player_set_stream). The description lacks explicit error/edge-case behavior, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return formats, making this sufficiently complete.

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?

The top-level schema has zero descriptions, but the description fully specifies each sub-command's parameters, types, defaults, and requirements (e.g., 'at least one of volume_db/pitch_scale/autoplay/bus required'). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema, making it highly effective.

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 'Sound effects, music, ambience (AudioStreamPlayer / 2D / 3D)', clearly identifying the tool as audio management. It then enumerates six concrete operations (player_create, player_set_stream, etc.), making the purpose specific and well-distinguished from sibling tools like node_manage or resource_manage.

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 provides clear domain context ('sound effects, music, ambience') and operation-level details, such as when to use player_create vs play. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools (e.g., resource_manage for loading streams), so alternatives are not named.

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