set_modulation_parameter_settings

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the partial-update contract (omitted fields retain values) and the notable side effect that the asset is saved even when no field is supplied. It does not contradict the destructive hint.

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 purpose and mutation contract are front-loaded, but the final 'Returns: { ... }' sentence redundantly restates the return fields already enumerated in the prior sentence, giving the description two competing endings.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, the partial-update semantics, the always-save side effect, and the full return shape, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds default/omission behavior for each field ('omitted fields keep their value') plus which Settings properties the params map to, which is meaning beyond the schema's per-field type notes.

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+resource: writes named Settings fields (value_normalized, clamp_to_normalized_range, value_unit) of a USoundModulationParameter asset. This is distinct from siblings like create_modulation_parameter, get_modulation_parameter_info, and set_modulation_generator_settings, so an agent can select it without opening a 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?

The description explains partial-update semantics (omitted fields keep their value; save happens even with no changes), which implicitly signals when to use it, but it never names an alternative tool or states when-not-to-use it versus create_modulation_parameter or get_modulation_parameter_info.

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