bp_wire_audio_param

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and usefully enumerates the sequence of side effects: opening the Blueprint, optionally registering a source node, adding a SetFloatParameter call, setting the parameter name, connecting the source, and compiling. It does not cover error behavior, save state, or reversibility, but the composite mutation is clearly disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then gives a compact ordered step list and an Args section. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 four-parameter composite tool with no annotations, the description supplies the operation sequence and parameter meanings, and an output schema exists to cover return values. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and whether the asset is saved after compiling, but the definition is largely complete.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all four parameters are explained with meaning beyond the schema titles, including a MetaSounds parameter example and the role of source_node_guid and source_pin. It stops short of specifying asset path format or pin-name constraints, but the added meaning is substantial.

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 a specific verb and resource: wire a SetFloatParameter call into a Blueprint. It also flags the tool as high-level, which distinguishes it from lower-level siblings like bp_add_bp_node or bp_connect_bp_pins, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 'High-level' label implies this tool should be preferred over manually combining lower-level node and pin operations, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Alternatives are not named, so usage is only implied.

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