connect_sound_cue_nodes

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state and is not safely repeatable. The description usefully discloses the return object, which matters since no output schema exists, but it doesn't explain what happens to an already-occupied input slot or whether the change is persisted (the saved field hints at this but is unexplained).

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?

Front-loads the operation in one sentence and puts the return shape on a second line. Every element earns its place, though the return block is dense and the operation sentence is terse rather than efficient.

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?

Given annotations that cover the safety profile and a description that includes the return shape (compensating for the missing output schema), the core call path is covered. However, for a destructive graph-wiring mutation in a large sibling set, the absence of prerequisites and slot-conflict behavior leaves the definition only minimally adequate.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema (including input_index defaulting to the next free slot). The description adds only the parent/child relationship framing, which the schema descriptions already convey, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Wire") and resource ("child node into a parent node's input slot") scoped to sound cues via the cue_path parameter, so an agent can distinguish it from generic graph connectors like connect_pins or connect_metasound_nodes. It doesn't explicitly name its mirror sibling disconnect_sound_cue_nodes, so sibling differentiation relies on inference.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (nodes must already exist in the cue graph), and no indication of when to prefer this over disconnect_sound_cue_nodes or set_sound_cue_first_node. It simply states the operation.

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