wire_play_sound_to_blueprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the connection semantics (then pin to execute pin) and the 2D/3D variant behavior, but it does not mention side effects, whether the blueprint is saved, or failure conditions such as an invalid after_node_id or missing sound asset.

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 description is well-structured with a one-line summary, a compact Args block, a KB pointer, and a usage example. Every section adds value, the main action is front-loaded, and there is minimal redundancy.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers all required and optional inputs, gives a concrete example, and explains wiring behavior. It omits some contextual details like prerequisite asset import and whether the blueprint needs to be compiled or saved afterward, but the output schema can address return values.

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 0% and the schema provides only titles, but the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter: blueprint_name, sound_asset_path, after_node_id with GUID connection semantics, node_position with [X,Y] format, and use_play_at_location with True/False behavior. The example further clarifies expected input formats.

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 uses an action verb ('Add') plus a specific resource ('PlaySound2D (or PlaySoundAtLocation) node to a Blueprint') and clarifies the distinct wiring behavior ('wired after a specific node'), which separates it from sibling add-node tools. It also states the high-level purpose ('attach imported sound assets to Blueprint events').

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?

The description gives clear usage context: it is meant for attaching imported sound assets to Blueprint events and details exactly how the new node is wired. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus other sound-node tools like add_play_sound_node.

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