set_modulation_patch_output_parameter

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. Beyond that the description adds real behavioral context: the patch is saved as a side effect, and the return fields describe the stored state including what happens after a clear. This exceeds the annotation baseline without fully detailing what clearing destroys.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first clause. It is slightly redundant in restating the return shape twice (once prose, once bracketed), but stays compact and readable.

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, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields and their post-clear state, and annotations cover the mutation profile. Sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, though it omits error behavior for invalid patch/parameter paths.

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% and the schema itself documents the empty-string-to-clear semantics, so the description largely reiterates rather than adds. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries full parameter meaning.

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: setting the output USoundModulationParameter of a USoundModulationPatch asset, plus the clearing condition. This is distinguishable from siblings like set_modulation_parameter_settings, set_modulation_patch_bypass and set_modulation_generator_settings 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?

Specifies the clear condition (parameter_path empty string) and routes the agent to create_modulation_parameter when a parameter doesn't yet exist. It does not explicitly exclude related siblings or state prerequisites, so it falls just short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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