create_sound_modulation_patch

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

Annotations only give the generic read-only/open-world/idempotent/destructive flags; the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: the patch is created with no inputs or output, is bypassed by default (bBypass true), the asset is saved immediately, and an already-existing patch is returned untouched rather than re-saved. That is real operational context an agent could not get from 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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the key behaviors (defaults, save, existing-asset handling) come early. But the return fields are listed twice — inline and again in a redundant 'Returns: { ... }' block that also repeats patch_path — which is wasted space in an otherwise dense paragraph.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does list all eight fields (patch_path, bBypass, input_count, output_parameter_path, created, already_existed, saved). Combined with the default state, save behavior, and existing-asset semantics, an agent has nearly everything needed to call and interpret it 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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents patch_name and package_path (including the /Game/MCP default). The prose only restates 'package_path/patch_name' without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Creates a USoundModulationPatch asset') plus the exact creation target (package_path/patch_name), and names the follow-up tools that distinguish this asset-creation step from siblings like create_modulation_generator or create_modulation_parameter. An agent can identify the tool and its role in the modulation workflow without opening the schema.

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 the workflow (create the empty patch, then fill it with add_modulation_input_to_patch and set_modulation_patch_output_parameter), which is useful routing context. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus the other create_modulation_* siblings, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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