set_sound_source_bus_send_info

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and readOnly=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: partial merge semantics, clamping, and a full return shape including applied_keys and saved. It stops short of stating permission requirements or exactly what 'clamp' constrains.

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 tight lines; the action, mechanism, and return shape are all front-loaded with zero filler. Every clause carries 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?

For a nested-object mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and merge behavior an agent needs, so the missing output schema does not leave a gap. Remaining omissions (permissions, precise clamp bounds) are minor.

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 documents ssb_path, send_info fields, and the replace-in-place/append behavior of send_index. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which lands at the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 and resource: authoring a single FSoundSourceBusSendInfo entry on USoundBase::BusSends. The scope is clear and an agent can tell it edits the BusSends array. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings like set_sound_source_bus_send_level_curve or set_sound_source_bus_audio_bus, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative audio-bus or send-level-curve tools. The 'partial merge + clamp' note describes mechanism, not selection context, so the agent gets no help deciding when this tool is the right one.

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