set_metasound_preset_parameter

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that the change is persisted via BuildAndOverwriteMetaSound, confirming an asset mutation (consistent with destructive), plus a verified/value_read_back return. However, the Loads/FindOrBeginBuilding/SetGraphInputDefault chain is internal implementation detail rather than agent-relevant behavior such as prerequisites or failure modes.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and target before the mechanics. The engine-internal call chain is slightly noisy for an agent, but the return-shape sentence earns its place because no output schema exists.

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, describing the return object (success, verified, value_read_back, saved) is genuinely necessary and present. Parameters are fully covered by the schema, and the persistence behavior is stated; only the absence of prerequisites (e.g. whether the preset must exist) keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, with each parameter documented including the parameter_type literal mapping, so the baseline is 3. The description only alludes to 'the appropriate literal type' for parameter_type and otherwise adds no meaning beyond the schema, so no upgrade is warranted.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Sets a parameter default value on a MetaSound preset' is unambiguous about the operation and target asset. It implicitly distinguishes preset-scoped work from graph-scoped siblings (metasound_set_input_default, set_meta_sound_node_property), but never names those alternatives explicitly, so an agent choosing between preset vs. graph edits gets no direct guidance.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The closest is the phrase 'on a MetaSound preset', which implies context but does not tell an agent when a preset edit is preferred over editing the underlying graph (metasound_set_input_default) or one of the other metasound_* siblings.

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