is_wwise_property_enabled

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds context about property disablement causes and clarifies the return format. No contradictions or hidden side effects are disclosed, but the description enhances understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured with a summary followed by detailed parameter explanations and return format. It is slightly verbose due to examples but remains clear and organized without redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, object identification options) and the presence of annotations covering safety, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and return format. It leaves no critical gaps for correct invocation.

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 fully compensates by providing detailed semantics for all parameters, including examples and format for property_name, platform, and object identifiers. It also specifies that exactly one object identifier must be provided, which is critical for correct usage.

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 explicitly states the tool checks if a property is enabled on a Wwise object for a given platform. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like 'is_wwise_property_linked'.

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 explains when to use the tool, including scenarios where a property is disabled due to override or platform inapplicability. It provides guidance on identifying objects via one of three methods, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives like 'get_wwise_object_info'.

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