set_sound_cue_first_node

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a destructive, non-read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the change is undoable, the asset is saved, and an out-of-range node_id produces an error.

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 is front-loaded and the description is short. The return fields are mentioned once in prose and then repeated in a Returns block, which is slightly redundant but not excessive.

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 appropriately documents the return object, the error case, and the undo/save behavior. It is nearly complete for an agent to call this correctly, missing only minor details such as permission or checkout requirements.

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 the schema already defines cue_path and node_id. The description still adds value by explaining where to obtain valid node ids and warning that an out-of-range node_id is an error.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: making a node the root (FirstNode/output) of a USoundCue graph. It also identifies the effect precisely, distinguishing it from siblings like add_sound_cue_node and set_sound_cue_node_properties.

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?

It tells the agent where to get the required node_id from, naming add_sound_cue_node and get_sound_cue_graph. That is clear prerequisite guidance, though it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name a direct alternative for setting the root.

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