set_sound_attenuation_properties

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 beyond them: 'partial merge' discloses that unspecified keys are left untouched (mitigating the destructive hint) and it defines the return object, which matters since no output schema exists.

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, zero filler, with the operation front-loaded and the return shape clearly separated. Every clause earns 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?

A mutation tool with no output schema, but the description supplies the return shape inline and annotations carry the safety profile; parameters are fully documented by the schema. Only the missing when-to-use guidance against create_sound_attenuation keeps this from a 5.

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 is rich (enumerating fields, ranges, and explicitly excluding plugin sub-objects). The description adds only the general merge semantics, not per-parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Author') and resource ('FSoundAttenuationSettings on a USoundAttenuation') plus the mechanic ('via reflection, partial merge + clamp'). An agent can immediately distinguish this from the get_sound_attenuation_properties read sibling.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never names alternatives. It doesn't clarify that the target USoundAttenuation must already exist (unlike create_sound_attenuation), nor when to prefer this over set_sound_class_properties or similar setters. Usage must be inferred from 'partial merge' semantics.

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