sound_selection_create_variation

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's promise to 'return' a delta rather than modify the palette is consistent with that safety profile — no contradiction. The description adds the delta-vs-replace distinction beyond the annotations, but with the annotations already covering safety, the incremental behavioral context is modest; the description doesn't clarify how the returned delta is meant to be consumed or whether it persists.

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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words, and it front-loads the key distinction. But it is terse to the point of under-specification: for a tool with a deeply nested request schema, one line of prose leaves significant context unstated.

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 — four parameters including a heavily nested SoundSelectionRequest with many sub-objects and defaults — a one-sentence description is insufficient. The output schema covers return values, but the description never explains what a 'variation' means in the workflow, how it relates to sound_selection_plan/sound_selection_apply, or why an agent would choose this over its siblings. An agent cannot confidently decide when this tool fits.

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 description coverage is 75%, with the schema already documenting the three meaningful parameters: request ('Section-specific direction; anchors remain preserved by default'), section ('Section receiving the delta'), and replace_roles ('Roles explicitly allowed to replace'). The description itself contributes essentially nothing about parameters, so it correctly relies on the schema to carry that burden — baseline 3 applies.

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 'Return a section delta instead of replacing the existing palette' states a specific behavior and contrasts it against an implicit alternative (replacing the palette), which gives the tool some identity distinct from palette-replacing tools like sound_selection_apply. However, the phrase 'section delta' is jargon that isn't explained, and the description never mentions that the annotations' title identifies this as a planning tool ('Plan a Sound Palette variation'), leaving the actual function somewhat ambiguous.

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 implies the tool should be used when you want a delta rather than a full replacement, but it never names a sibling tool or gives explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use conditions. An agent comparing this against sound_selection_plan or sound_selection_apply gets no direct guidance on how to route between them.

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