set_control_bus_value

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true), but the description goes further by disclosing transience ('the asset is not modified or saved'), that 'applied is always true, not read back,' and the fade semantics. It stops short of describing permission requirements or the effect on audible playback, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 core action, followed by the transient caveat and a compact Returns line. Nearly every sentence earns its place, with only mild redundancy between the opening mechanism description and the 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 runtime-mutation tool with annotations but no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and clarifies transience, which is what an agent needs to avoid assuming persistence. It is essentially complete, missing only permission/perf context.

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%, with value, bus_path, and fade_time all documented in the schema (including the negative-value fade reuse rule). The description adds only the notion of fading over fade_time, which largely restates the schema, so 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 (pushes a runtime value), resource (USoundControlBus via a global bus mix), and mechanism (SetGlobalBusMixValue fading over fade_time). This distinguishes it from siblings like set_control_bus_mix_stage_value or set_rig_control_value without opening their schemas.

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 context is implied by 'runtime value' and 'transient,' and it helpfully points to get_modulation_info for reading the live value. However, it never states when to choose this over the neighboring set_control_bus_mix_stage_value, so the routing guidance is partial rather than explicit.

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