sound_set_audio_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool reads back the assignment, that a guid alone isn't proof of attachment, and that it raises on failure rather than reporting false success. It adds valuable insight beyond the schema, though it does not mention side effects like overwriting existing assignments.

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 well-organized with a clear main action, a behavioral note, and parameter explanations. Each sentence contributes value, and the structure is easy to scan. Slightly longer than minimal but not bloated.

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 covers the main behavior and parameters but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., asset must be imported, instrument must exist) and side effects (e.g., whether an existing assignment is overwritten). Given no annotations and no output schema, these gaps make it only partially complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that 'target' is an Instrument guid or path, and 'audio' is an Asset guid from audio_import. This adds meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema.

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 assigns an audio asset to an instrument, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like sound_add_to_track or sound_create, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description covers 'how' but not 'when' or 'when not to use'.

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