game_audio_play

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only states high-level actions. It does not explain what happens on invalid paths, whether volume/pitch modifications persist, how 'fromPosition' interacts with play, or whether loading a stream resets other playback state.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, containing no fluff. It is concise but arguably too terse given the tool's seven parameters and missing usage context.

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 tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It lacks side-effect disclosure, parameter interaction guidance, error behavior, and usage context, leaving substantial gaps for the agent to fill.

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 parameter meanings are already documented. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond naming the operation, and it slightly misaligns by not mentioning the 'resume' action listed in the schema. 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 resource type (AudioStreamPlayer node) and the core operations (play, stop, pause), which distinguishes it from audio bus or effect tools. However, it omits the 'resume' action and the broader control features like volume, pitch, bus, and stream replacement, so it understates the tool's full scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like game_audio_bus, game_audio_effect, or game_get_audio. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or sibling comparisons, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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