bp_export_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly meets it: it discloses the runtime dependency ('Requires the UE5 C++ plugin to be running'), the exact subgraph scope (audio nodes + 1-hop neighbours), and what data comes back (pin data, connections). It does not explicitly state read-only/non-destructive nature or failure behavior for a missing plugin, leaving a small gap.

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 scope, then usage rationale, then the environment prerequisite, then args. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still summarizes the returned structure. For a one-parameter read tool, the prerequisite, scope, and format guidance make it complete enough to invoke correctly.

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% for the single asset_path parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so by giving a concrete path example ('/Game/Blueprints/BP_Character'), which conveys the expected UE5 asset-path format the bare schema does not.

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 ('Export the audio-relevant subgraph from a Blueprint') and immediately narrows the scope: 'Returns only audio nodes + their 1-hop neighbours, with pin data and connections.' This is precise enough to distinguish it from generic graph/scan siblings like bp_scan_blueprint or ms_export_graph.

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?

Gives a clear use case: 'Useful for understanding how Blueprint events drive MetaSounds/Wwise parameters.' That tells the agent when this tool is the right pick, but it names no alternatives or explicit exclusions among the many graph-related siblings.

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