set_sound_wave_properties

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

Annotations already declare destructive=false? no – destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing the mutation model ('partial merge + clamp') and by listing a 'saved' flag in the return, signaling that changes may persist to disk.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a compact return-key list. Nothing is redundant, though the 'via reflection' phrase is technical filler for an agent that only needs the merge/clamp semantics.

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, but the description enumerates the return keys and the annotations carry the safety profile (destructive, idempotent). For a 3-parameter mutation tool with a richly documented schema, the only real omission is explicit guidance on saving/checkout behavior.

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 the settings property already enumerates every tunable with its value ranges, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only the notion of clamping, not new per-parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is correct.

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: authoring USoundWave tunables on an imported sound wave. 'USoundWave' is distinct from the other sound-property setters (sound class, attenuation, concurrency), so the resource scope is clear, though no sibling is named explicitly the way the calibration example names one.

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?

Usage is implied by 'imported sound wave' and the read counterpart get_sound_wave_properties exists, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite (e.g. whether the package must be checked out or saved). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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