game_audio_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the actions without explaining side effects, state changes, or dependencies. For example, it does not clarify that 'add' appends or requires a bus, or that 'configure' needs an index. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple actions.

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 very concise (one short phrase) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it lacks any structure or additional details that would improve clarity without increasing length.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity (6 parameters, nested objects), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error states, or typical usage patterns, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema. It does not clarify parameter relationships or usage order.

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 states the verb ('Add/remove/configure') and the resource ('audio bus effects'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'game_audio_bus' which manages buses themselves. However, it omits the 'list' action from the schema, slightly reducing specificity.

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, when to use each action (add vs remove vs configure), or prerequisites like needing an existing audio bus. The implied usage is minimal.

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