set_sound_cue_node_properties

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true; the description reinforces idempotency and adds non-obvious traits: reflection-based writes, CPF_Edit-only filtering, and graph wiring being unreachable. It does not explicitly state whether the asset is saved to disk (only the returned `saved` flag hints at this), leaving a small mutation-side gap.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence and every subsequent clause adds routing, contract, or return information with no filler. It is dense with parentheticals and reads longer than strictly necessary, but nothing is wasted.

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 supplies the return shape (cue_path, node_id, node_class, applied_keys, saved), plus the partial-update semantics, editability restriction, and sibling alternatives. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes well beyond the schema: it defines the `properties` key namespace as camelCase UPROPERTY names sourced from the same ones get_sound_cue_graph reports, and gives concrete per-node examples (Modulator pitchMin/pitchMax/volumeMin/volumeMax, Delay delayMin/delayMax). That is material guidance the schema does not provide.

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 with scope: it sets EditAnywhere properties of a Sound Cue node located by node_id via reflection. It also positions itself against siblings, naming get_sound_cue_graph as the read twin and connect_sound_cue_nodes for wiring, so an agent can distinguish it from either without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: read with get_sound_cue_graph, edit properties with this tool, and use connect_sound_cue_nodes for ChildNodes/graph wiring since that is 'unreachable here'. It also defines the partial-update contract (only supplied keys, only CPF_Edit props), which tells the agent exactly what the tool will and will not do.

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