set_sound_class_properties

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the transaction model ('one undoable transaction, then save it'), partial-update semantics ('only fields you pass change'), lenient validation ('not range-checked', unknown enums silently skipped), and post-condition reporting via applied_<field>/saved flags. This is consistent with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true.

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 prose paragraph is tightly front-loaded, leading with the mutation scope and partial-update rule before the caveats. The long Returns block is verbose but justified here because there is no output schema to carry it, though listing values that duplicate parameter names costs some density.

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 19-parameter, single-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers write semantics, save behavior, validation leniency, and the return shape, so an agent can call and interpret it correctly. Missing only secondary context such as permissions or source-control/checkout implications of the save step.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter policy the schema cannot express: unpassed fields are untouched, numeric values are unchecked, and unrecognized enum strings are skipped rather than erroring. That meaningfully changes how an agent should construct the call.

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 (write) and resource (FSoundClassProperties fields of a USoundClass asset) and enumerates the field groups covered (volume, pitch, filters, routing, loading flags). This clearly separates it from read-side siblings like get_sound_class_properties and the narrowly-scoped set_sound_class_parent.

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 implies when to use it (mutating a sound class's property set) and notes that only passed fields change, but it names no alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer that parent changes belong to set_sound_class_parent and reads to get_sound_class_properties.

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