remove_modulation_input_from_patch

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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states the patch must reach disk for removal to count as success, that the no-match case saves nothing and returns removed=false/already_removed=true, and it enumerates the response fields. Note a mild tension with idempotentHint=false, since the described no-match path is effectively a no-op re-call, though the annotations' write/destructive profile is not contradicted.

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 behavior is front-loaded and readable, but the return field list is duplicated verbatim ('Returns patch_path, bus_path, removed, already_removed, input_count, saved.' followed by 'Returns: { ... }'), which is pure waste. The dense run-on second sentence also packs the success and no-match branches together.

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 correctly explains the return fields and covers the key edge case (no matching input), which is what an agent most needs for this two-parameter mutation tool. It stops short of stating permission requirements or where the save lands, a minor omission.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description still adds value by explaining the matching semantics of bus_path ('bus has the same asset name as bus_path'), which is not captured by the schema's plain 'asset path' wording.

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 gives a specific verb (removes) and a precisely scoped resource ('every input of a USoundModulationPatch asset whose bus has the same asset name as bus_path'), which goes beyond the tool name by spelling out the asset-name matching rule. It does not explicitly name the add_modulation_input_to_patch sibling, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 by the name and the described semantics (remove a matching modulation input), and the no-match branch clarifies one edge case. However, there is no explicit 'when to use this vs the add_* sibling' guidance and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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