install_sound_candidate

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds that the tool targets specific engines, but it does not disclose installation behavior such as file copying, project structure modifications, or what overwrite means in practice.

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 focused sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every phrase adds relevant 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?

Despite having seven parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description provides only the core purpose. It omits what 'install' actually does, how the candidate is identified, what required inputs mean, and what a successful installation entails, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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%, and the description explains none of the seven parameters beyond echoing the engine options already present in the schema. generation_id, variant, project_root, asset_name, overwrite, and destination_directory are left entirely to the agent to infer.

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 primary action — installing an explicitly selected AudioMade candidate — and specifies the target project types (Unity, Godot, Defold, or generic). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on generation, retrieval, or selection.

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 phrase 'explicitly selected' implies this tool should be used after select_sound_candidate, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention prerequisites. The usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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