add_submix_effect_to_chain

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by enumerating return fields such as effect_added, chain_length, resolved_from, and saved, which tells the agent the operation persists the asset and reports how the preset was resolved — details not present in the annotations.

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 compact lines with the action front-loaded; the return-field enumeration is verbose but justified because no output schema exists. No filler sentences.

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 no output schema, the description documents the full return shape, and annotations cover the safety profile while the schema covers all three parameters. What remains missing is prerequisite and persistence guidance (whether the submix must pre-exist, whether the asset is saved to disk), which matters for a mutating editor tool.

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 both optional parameters (effect_preset_path and effect_preset_class) are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no additional meaning about their mutual exclusivity or precedence.

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 states a specific verb and resource: appending a submix effect preset to a USoundSubmix effect chain. It separates itself from nearby audio siblings such as add_soundfield_effect_to_submix and set_submix_effect_settings by naming the exact object being mutated, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as the submix needing to exist first or the asset being saved afterward. The only hint of usage context is the optional preset-path versus preset-class parameters, which is left entirely to the schema.

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