metasound_set_input_default

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing the internal workflow: it obtains a builder (FindOrBeginBuilding), calls SetGraphInputDefault, reads the value back to verify, and saves the asset. It does not explicitly warn that an existing default is overwritten, but nothing contradicts 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the workflow and the parameter one-of rule, then the return shape. The sentence describing internal calls (FindOrBeginBuilding, SetGraphInputDefault) is somewhat implementation-flavored but still earns its place as behavioral disclosure; overall efficient with no filler.

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 documenting the full return object inline (asset_path, input_name, value_type, value_set, verified, value_read_back, saved). Combined with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the result, though prerequisites and sibling routing remain unstated.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds value by restating the one-of rule and mapping each value parameter to its type (float/int32/bool/string), reinforcing which field carries the default when none is supplied.

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 ('Sets the default literal value of a MetaSound Source graph input'), which is clearly distinct from node-level siblings like set_meta_sound_node_input_default and from graph-interface siblings like add_metasound_graph_input. The 'graph input' qualifier does most of the differentiation, though it does not name the alternative tools directly.

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 a clear usage constraint: 'Provide exactly one of value (float, default), int_value, bool_value or string_value,' which resolves the mutual-exclusivity ambiguity among four value parameters. It does not, however, state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or what prerequisites (e.g., asset must exist) apply.

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