diff_wwise_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the return format (properties and lists arrays) and confirms it is a comparison operation. No behavioral traits beyond annotations, but it provides useful output context.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, usage suggestion, parameter list with examples, and return format. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary repetition.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return structure (properties and lists arrays). It covers input requirements, identifier formats, and output expectations. The tool is simple enough that this is 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides detailed parameter semantics: explains each parameter (source_path, source_guid, source_name_with_type, etc.), gives examples of identifier formats (path, GUID, type:name), and states that exactly one identifier per object should be provided. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool compares two Wwise objects and returns differing properties, references, and lists. The verb 'compare' and resource 'Wwise objects' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like get_wwise_object_info which retrieves info for a single object.

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 mentions use cases 'auditing' and 'Paste Properties workflows' but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives. It implies usage but lacks clear exclusions or comparison with siblings like get_property_and_reference_names.

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