set_modulation_generator_settings

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=true, openWorld=false), the description discloses non-obvious semantics: mismatched-class params are silently ignored rather than erroring, wrong generator classes are hard-refused, and the result is persisted ('saves it'). It does not spell out that existing settings are overwritten (the destructiveHint) or what happens on a partial-class match failure, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose and constraints are front-loaded in a single dense sentence. The return contract, however, is stated twice — once as a prose list ('Returns generator_path, generator_class, settings as stored, updated, saved') and again as a structured signature — so one sentence does not fully earn its place.

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 10 parameters at full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations present, the description carries the remaining burden well: it names the accepted classes, the class-param matching rule, and the return fields. The one gap is that a destructive overwrite (destructiveHint=true) is never acknowledged in text.

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% and lists each parameter's owning class, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a rule the schema cannot express — that parameters from a non-matching class are accepted but ignored — which is exactly the kind of cross-parameter semantics that changes how an agent calls the tool.

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 (writes/saves) and resource (a USoundModulationGenerator asset's class-matched settings), and enumerates the three handled classes (LFO, ADEnvelope, EnvelopeFollower). It is trivially distinguishable from sibling readers like get_modulation_generator_info and creators like create_modulation_generator_lfo without opening any 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?

Gives real when-not conditions: other generator classes are refused, LFO shape cannot be set here, and params belonging to another class are ignored. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative for the excluded cases (e.g., where LFO shape is set), so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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