game_audio_bus_layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists actions (add, remove, move, set_send, list) but does not mention side effects or safety profiles, such as whether removal is destructive or if actions affect other buses.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key operations. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured without becoming verbose.

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 has 4 parameters, multiple actions, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain individual actions (e.g., use 'index' for move, 'sendTo' for set_send) or return behavior, leaving gaps for an AI agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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's meaning. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 'Create/remove/reorder audio buses and routing' clearly specifies the verb-resource combination and distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'game_audio_bus' and 'game_audio_effect', which likely handle individual bus properties or effects.

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 is for managing audio bus layout and routing, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No contrast with sibling tools is given.

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