set_modulation_patch_bypass

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

Annotations already supply the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a bypassed patch stays active but outputs the output parameter's default value, and the asset is written to disk via the save. This meaningfully clarifies the effect of the operation.

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 behavioral sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the return values are stated twice ('Returns patch_path, bBypass as stored, updated, saved.' followed by 'Returns: { patch_path, bBypass, updated, saved }'), which is a redundant sentence that does not 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?

There is no output schema, so the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields, and it explains the bypass semantics and the save. For a two-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, this is close to complete, lacking only explicit routing guidance to alternatives.

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%, so both parameters (patch_path, bypass) are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description references patch_path and the bypass flag but adds no format or range detail beyond the schema.

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 (Sets) and a precise resource (the bBypass flag of a USoundModulationPatch asset), and it also clarifies the effect of the flag. This is unambiguous against siblings like set_modulation_patch_output_parameter or add_modulation_input_to_patch because the target flag is named.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. 'New patches start bypassed' hints at context but does not tell the agent when to prefer this over related tools such as get_sound_modulation_patch_info or set_modulation_patch_output_parameter.

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