create_sound_cue

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

The description states that a cue already present at the path 'is returned unchanged (already_existed:true)' and reports was-it-created/was-it-saved flags — i.e. calling it repeatedly with the same args has no additional effect. The annotations declare idempotentHint=false, directly contradicting the behavior the description documents. Under the contradiction rule this scores 1 even though the prose is otherwise rich.

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?

Sentences are front-loaded and information-dense, but the return value is partially stated twice ('Returns cue_path, asset_path, node_count and saved' then the full object dump), a small redundancy that keeps it off 5.

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 present, the description must carry return semantics, and it does (full result object), plus it explains the empty-cue state and the follow-up workflow. It is nearly complete for this tool's complexity; the un-reconciled idempotency claim is the remaining 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both params (name example 'SC_Footsteps', package_path default '/Game/SoundCues'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds only the composite 'package_path/name' framing and nothing beyond it; 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+resource (create a USoundCue) and pins down the exact nature ('empty ... no nodes, no first node') plus the exact package_path/name location. It is clearly distinguishable from add_sound_cue_node/connect_sound_cue_nodes, which it routes to for graph building.

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?

It tells the agent this yields an empty container and names the three sibling tools used to populate it (add_sound_cue_node, connect_sound_cue_nodes, set_sound_cue_first_node), which is effective workflow routing. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' exclusion, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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