set_sound_source_bus_audio_bus

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the save is required for success, the set/clear effects are read back, and a bus path that fails to load is an error rather than a silent clear. It does not, however, describe permissions or failure behavior beyond the load case.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its clear behavior, then the save requirement and error semantics. Slightly redundant: the informal mention of returned audio_bus_path/audio_bus_class is repeated in a formal Returns block, which costs a few words without adding information.

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 must carry the return contract, and it does: ssb_path, audio_bus_path, audio_bus_class, cleared, and saved, plus the caveat that a non-loading path is an error. For a two-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the empty/omitted-clears semantics. The description restates this rather than adding format or resolution detail, so the schema carries the load and 3 is the correct baseline.

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: point the AudioBus output of a USoundSourceBus asset at a UAudioBus, or clear it. This is clearly distinct from neighboring audio-bus tools like set_sound_source_bus_send_info or set_sound_source_bus_send_level_curve, which operate on sends rather than the output bus.

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 explains the clear-vs-set condition (audio_bus_path empty or omitted clears), which is genuine usage context, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternative tool guidance or prerequisites (e.g. inspect first with get_sound_source_bus, or whether the asset must be loaded). Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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