sound_set_owner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool 'Reads the assignment back before returning', which is a useful behavioral trait beyond the basic set operation. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, permissions, or what happens if the assignment fails. The reference to sound_set_audio_file for reading back is helpful but not fully transparent about the return value or error handling.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a behavioral note and parameter explanations. It uses a clear structure with 'Args:' section. The only minor issue is the reference to sound_set_audio_file, which might be slightly confusing without context, but overall it's efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and a behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., does the target sound need to exist?), and what 'reads back' means in terms of return value. For a mutation tool, this is a moderate gap.

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 explains that 'target' is a SingleSound {guid} and 'owner' is an Owner MultiSound/Scatterer {guid}, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema (which only says 'string'). However, it doesn't explain the format of the GUIDs or any constraints (e.g., must be valid GUIDs), and the example is brief. This is adequate but not rich.

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 purpose: 'Set a sound's owning instrument' with a concrete example (SingleSound into a MultiSound). It uses a specific verb (set) and resource (sound's owning instrument), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sound_set_name or sound_set_audio_file. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all related siblings, so it's not a 5.

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 usage context by giving an example of when to use it (e.g., assigning a SingleSound into a MultiSound), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It also references sound_set_audio_file for reading back the assignment, which provides some cross-tool guidance, but this is more about behavior than usage context.

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