game_audio_bus_layout

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

No annotations exist, and the description gives minimal behavioral context (e.g., it doesn't state whether operations are destructive, require permissions, or have side effects on mixing). The word 'create/remove' implies mutability but lacks detail.

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 with no redundancy. It could be slightly expanded to cover all actions, but it is not 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 moderate complexity (multiple actions, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient but does not explain the interaction between parameters (e.g., when 'sendTo' is needed) or return behavior.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and parameters are described, so schema already provides meaning. The description adds little beyond the schema's own descriptions (e.g., action values are listed in schema's description field). Thus baseline 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 clearly identifies the tool as managing audio buses and routing, which aligns with its resource name and distinguishes it from sibling tools like game_audio_play or game_audio_effect. However, it omits some actions (e.g., 'list') and could be more precise about the full range of operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as game_audio_bus (which might focus on single bus settings) or game_audio_effect. Without context, an agent may misuse it.

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