game_audio_bus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only names the action and does not explain the effect of calling with no parameters, whether changes are persistent, or whether values are applied immediately. The all-optional parameter list makes this ambiguity more significant.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no filler or 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?

For a simple setter this is mostly adequate: the schema covers all parameters, and no output schema is needed. However, with all parameters optional, the description does not clarify what happens when no arguments are provided, nor does it address likely edge cases around muting, soloing, or resetting volume.

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 schema already documents each parameter and the Master bus default. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond naming the supported operations, which keeps it at the baseline.

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 ('Set volume, mute, or solo') and a specific resource ('audio bus'), which clearly conveys what the tool does. It is distinguishable from nearby siblings like game_audio_play and game_audio_bus_layout by the resource and action, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus game_audio_play, game_audio_bus_layout, or game_audio_effect. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are provided; the usage context must be inferred entirely from the verb 'Set' and the resource.

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