event_play

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

The description discloses the behavioral outcome (plays the event, allowing auditory verification) beyond the annotations (which are absent). It does not mention side effects like muting other events or blocking behavior, but for a simple playback action, the provided transparency is sufficient.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement and an argument section. It avoids unnecessary details while conveying essential information. Slightly more context about expected behavior or side effects could improve it, but it is above average.

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?

The description includes a motivational note ('instead of guessing from the event tree') and explains the target format. With only one parameter and no output schema, the context is sufficient for most use cases. It could mention failure modes or effects on other audio, but it is complete enough for basic selection.

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 only parameter 'target' is described in the description as 'event:// path or {guid}', providing format and examples. The schema itself lacks a description, but the tool description adequately clarifies the expected value. No enums or nested objects, so the single parameter is well explained.

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 tool's function: 'Play an event instance — the equivalent of pressing play in FMOD Studio's transport controls.' It specifies the action (play) and the resource (event instance), and distinguishes it from siblings like event_stop, event_toggle_pause, and event_playback_status by explaining the concrete outcome ('actually hear a result').

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 when to use the tool ('when you want to hear the result'), and contrasts with guessing from the event tree, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. However, given the clear sibling list, the usage context is adequately conveyed.

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