add_modulation_input_to_patch

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

Despite annotations being present, the description adds substantial behavior: duplicate inputs are skipped (returns added=false, already_present=true, and the patch is not re-saved), input_name is not persisted, and the patch is saved on success. This is exactly the 'what gets skipped / what is not stored' context the dimension rewards.

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 opening sentences are front-loaded and efficient, but the return value list is duplicated verbatim ('Returns patch_path, bus_path, ...' then a separate 'Returns: { ... }' block), which is wasted space in an otherwise compact definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the return fields, and annotations already carry the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive). Combined with the skip semantics and ignored-parameter note, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 100% and every parameter is documented there, so baseline is 3. The description's note that input_name is not stored meaningfully repeats what the schema already says ('Ignored: ... only written to the log'), adding little beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource: appends a USoundControlBus as an input of a USoundModulationPatch asset and saves it. An agent instantly understands the mutation. It does not name the inverse sibling (remove_modulation_input_from_patch) or otherwise explicitly differentiate, so it stops short of 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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself (adding a bus to a patch), and there is one useful conditional: a bus already present is skipped. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives, so the routing burden remains on the agent.

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