create_metasound_source

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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations (headless-safe, no modal picker, the pre-populated interface with OnPlay/audio/OnFinished) and details what gets written. However, it claims the tool 'loads, idempotently' while the annotations declare idempotentHint=false, a direct contradiction about whether repeat calls have side effects.

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 core action is front-loaded and the return payload is enumerated usefully since there is no output schema. Some implementation detail (UMetaSoundBuilderSubsystem::CreateSourceBuilder, UMetaSoundEditorSubsystem::BuildToAsset) is arguably extraneous, but it earns its place as transparency.

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 compensates by enumerating the return fields and describing the graph it builds and where it persists. For a creation/mutation tool it covers behavior and outcome well, with the idempotency inconsistency being the main gap.

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?

All three parameters are documented at 100% schema coverage (name, package_path, output_format), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides; 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?

The description states a specific verb (creates/loads) and resource (UMetaSoundSource asset) and immediately scopes the operation (builds a source graph, persists as a /Game asset). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as create_metasound_preset, add_metasound_graph_input, and create_sound_cue.

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 implies context (headless-safe; no modal picker) which tells the agent it is safe for automation, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over siblings like create_metasound_preset or add_metasound_graph_input, nor any prerequisites. Usage must be inferred.

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