sound_selection_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds beyond this by specifying 'deterministic' (same input → same output) and 'loaded-target assignments' (scope limited to already-loaded targets). This enriches the behavioral profile without contradicting annotations.

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 that leads with the core action and key constraint. There is no fluff, and it is front-loaded with the most important 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?

For a planning tool with a rich output schema and extensive internal schema descriptions, the description is sufficient to convey that this tool creates a plan without side effects. It could benefit from naming the apply alternative for clarity, but given the annotations and schema, nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema coverage is 100% and the `request` parameter already has a detailed description, so the tool description does not need to re-explain parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema fully covers it, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action: 'Choose deterministic loaded-target assignments' – a clear verb and resource. It also clarifies a key constraint ('without changing FL or history'), which distinguishes it from mutating siblings like sound_selection_apply. The title 'Plan a coherent sound palette' reinforces the purpose.

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 a planning-only role by emphasizing 'without changing FL or history,' which hints that it is not for applying changes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., sound_selection_apply) or provide conditions for selecting this tool over others. Usage guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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