create_niagara_system

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

The description does add real behavioral context beyond the annotations (headless-safe implementation path, saved-on-creation, empty emitter list, and the full return shape). However, it claims the operation is idempotent ('Creates (or loads, idempotently)') while the annotations declare idempotentHint=false, which is a direct conflict on a stated trait.

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 plus a return-shape line, front-loaded with the action and scope before implementation details. The 'NewObject + UNiagaraSystemFactoryNew::InitializeSystem' clause is implementation trivia for a calling agent, but it earns partial credit by signalling headless safety.

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 create-and-save tool, the description covers creation, saving, initial state, and the return contract even though no output schema exists. The main gap is the unresolved idempotency/overwrite behavior when the asset name already exists.

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% with only two well-documented parameters, so the schema carries the parameter burden and baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics for 'name' or 'package_path' (e.g., path format, overwrite behavior on collision).

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 ('Creates ... an empty UNiagaraSystem asset') and pins down scope ('empty', 'system spawn/update scripts wired but no emitters'). That scope detail is exactly what separates it from siblings like add_niagara_emitter_from_template or create_niagara_effect_type, which populate systems rather than creating a bare 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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point before adding emitters, but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given (e.g., what to do if the asset already exists). No preconditions or ordering guidance relative to add_niagara_emitter_* is stated.

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