create_modulation_generator_lfo

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: upsert semantics, that it enables looping and saves, that it overwrites an existing LFO, and especially that an unknown waveform is silently coerced to Sine while still being echoed as sent.

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 core action, then the write behavior, then the coercion caveat, then the return shape. Slightly dense but every clause carries signal; the explicit returns line is warranted because 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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent write tool with no output schema, the description covers creation/upsert, overwrite, save, coercion behavior, and enumerates the return values. Missing only peripheral details such as permission requirements, but it is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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%, so the schema documents all six parameters including defaults and the waveform value list, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by disclosing the silent waveform coercion (unknown value -> Sine but echoed as sent), which is not in 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 (creates) and resource (a USoundModulationGeneratorLFO asset), plus the location pattern package_path/generator_name. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_modulation_generator (generic) and set_modulation_generator_settings (update), since it names the exact LFO asset class and the fields written.

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 rather than stated: the description explains it creates-or-loads-then-overwrites an LFO, which tells an agent this is an upsert. But it never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer this over create_modulation_generator / set_modulation_generator_settings, so the agent must infer routing.

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