Make variations of an existing sound

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the random mutation behavior, accepted source forms, and the post-write refresh step. However, it does not explain filesystem side effects, output locations, or whether existing files are overwritten, leaving operational details unclear.

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?

Five focused sentences, front-loaded with the core mechanism, then use case, source guidance, constraints, and a follow-up action. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers most decision-relevant context: what it does, when to use it, source formats, prohibitions, and a post-action step. It omits semantics for save_bfxr/output_dir and exact write behavior, but is otherwise quite 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 coverage is high (80%), so the schema documents most parameters. The description adds valuable context for the source parameter (permallink, .wav/.bfxr paths, raw params) and reinforces constraints on play/embed_audio. It does not compensate for the undocumented save_bfxr and output_dir parameters.

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?

Clearly identifies the operation ('nudge every parameter by a small random amount'), target ('existing sound'), and result ('close variations'). This distinguishes it from sibling generate_sound and matches the title/familiar 'Mutate' button reference.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when the user likes a sound but wants it a bit different') and provides clear exclusions ('never set play or embed_audio, never call play_sound'). It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the contrast is implied.

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