add_sound_cue_node

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

Annotations already declare it as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so safety is covered. The description adds a useful return-shape contract (node_id, node_count, saved) that annotations do not provide. It omits the important behavioral fact that repeated calls add additional nodes (idempotentHint=false) and that max_child_nodes varies by node type, so it is only adequate.

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?

Two-part structure: one sentence for the action, one line for the return contract. Front-loaded with the verb and resource; the return list is verbose but earns its space given there is no output schema.

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 inline Returns block usefully compensates by documenting the response shape. However, for a 3-param mutation tool it lacks prerequisites (existing cue), the additive/non-idempotent semantics, and any routing to sibling node-editing tools, leaving it only minimally 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 100%, so cue_path, node_type (with the full enum list) and sound_wave_path are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating node_type via the returned node_type/node_class fields, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 and resource: 'Construct a USoundNode inside a Sound Cue', which is clearly distinguishable from create_sound_cue (makes the cue) and set_sound_cue_node_properties (edits an existing node). It does not name any sibling explicitly, 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus create_sound_cue, connect_sound_cue_nodes, or set_sound_cue_node_properties, and no prerequisite (the cue must already exist; node_type must be one of the listed types). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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