sound_generate

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

The description adds concrete behavior beyond the annotations: exact sound IDs, their meanings, the output location (assets/sounds/), and the idempotent behavior of leaving already-registered IDs untouched. This complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations rather than contradicting them, though it could more explicitly state whether files are overwritten.

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 compact and front-loaded: a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a precise list of generated IDs and behaviors. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no padding or repetition of schema content.

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 that the tool has only one optional parameter (fully explained in the schema) and an output schema exists, the description covers everything an agent needs: exactly what will be created, where, which IDs are affected, and how the results should be used afterward. No critical operational context is missing.

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?

The sole parameter, path, is fully documented in the input schema with a detailed explanation of bound-project resolution, relative paths, and omission behavior. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the schema-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Write proofcut's generated UI sounds into the project and import them.' It then lists exact sound IDs and their semantics, making it unmistakable what the tool does and clearly distinguishing it from siblings like sound_add, sound_ls, and sound_rm.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: existing IDs are left alone, so reruns are safe)Skip, and the generated sounds are meant to be used with sound_add. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as sound_add or sound_rm, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to select and sequence the tool correctly.

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