Generate a game sound effect

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which say little about side effects or costs. The description carries the full burden and does so richly: it states 'SPENDS AUDIO CREDITS', explains each variation costs separately, describes polling behavior with a bounded wait, reveals the return format (local file paths), and even discloses that the path is UNVERIFIED against the live API. This goes well beyond the annotations and is a model of transparency.

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 longer than the ideal but every sentence serves a purpose. It front-loads the cost warning, then describes the tool, provides loop guidance, explains polling, and ends with an essential unverified caveat. It is not verbose or redundant, though it could be tightened slightly by omitting the repeated warning about variations in both the main text and the parameter schema.

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 complex 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, loop behavior, variations, polling, bounded wait, and return format (local file paths). It also flags the unverified status. It does not specify error handling or edge cases, but given the schema covers parameter details and the description covers behavioral essentials, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely repeats what the schema already states (e.g., loop for seamless tiling, prompt advice 'Concrete physical description beats genre words' is in the schema's prompt description). It adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a 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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Generates a short sound effect from a text description' and lists concrete examples (weapon reports, impacts, footsteps, UI blips, ambience loop). It is immediately distinct from sibling tools like create_3d_asset or get_asset_job, since it targets audio generation and even references get_asset_job for polling.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'SPENDS AUDIO CREDITS' warns about cost, 'Set loop:true for anything that must tile without a seam' provides a condition for a parameter, and it explains when polling is needed ('a slow provider returns a job id to poll with get_asset_job rather than hanging'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when NOT to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose appropriately.

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