remove_niagara_emitter_handle

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return details (removed emitter name/id, before/after counts, removed boolean) and specifies the name/index selection behavior, though it does not discuss reversibility, permissions, or effects on the surrounding 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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides return shape information that substitutes for a missing output schema. Every element earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given annotations covering safety, full schema coverage of parameters, and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return details along with purpose and selection method. Minor gaps remain, such as error behavior when the emitter is not found or whether the removal is persisted, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions removal 'by name or index', which mirrors emitter_name and emitter_index, but the schema already documents both parameters and the rule that index is used only when name is not provided, so the description adds little beyond structured data.

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 states a specific verb (remove), a specific resource (emitter handle), the containing system (Niagara system), and the selection mechanism (by name or index). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like add_niagara_emitter_handle, duplicate_niagara_emitter_handle, and rename_niagara_emitter_handle without needing to name them explicitly.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no explicit alternatives. It does not mention related operations such as add_niagara_emitter_handle or duplicate_niagara_emitter_handle, nor does it state prerequisites like needing the emitter handle to already exist.

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