set_soundfield_effect_settings

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

The description itself discloses excellent behavioral detail beyond the annotations: why it fails (protected USoundfieldEffectBase::GetSettingsClass), the order of validation checks, the two distinct error paths for bad submix/effect_index, and the full return payload. But it directly conflicts with the annotations, which declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true even though the description states nothing is ever changed and every call fails.

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 decisive fact (cannot write, every call fails) in the first clause, followed by the cause, the validation order, and a compact Returns block. Dense but every clause carries information; only slight redundancy between 'nothing is changed' and the applied_count/saved fields.

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 inline Returns block supplies the full response shape, and the description covers failure cause, per-parameter error branching, and the success-path note. For a 3-parameter tool with annotations present, there is nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it correctly that 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: submix_path and effect_index are validated first and each has its own error (missing submix, out-of-range index), and the settings object is validated as a JSON object yet never written. That is meaningful behavior beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 names the exact resource and operation ('write soundfield effect settings') and immediately qualifies it ('in this engine version ... every call fails'), so an agent knows both what the tool is for and that it is non-functional. It is easily distinguished from sibling audio tools such as set_submix_effect_settings, add_soundfield_effect_to_submix, and get_soundfield_submix_info.

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?

'Every call fails and nothing is changed' is a strong implicit steer away from using the tool, which is genuine guidance. However, no alternative is named (e.g. getting settings via get_soundfield_submix_info or using the submix effect setter), and there is no explicit 'do not call / use X instead' statement.

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