set_niagara_component_bool

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true). The description goes further by explaining the write-then-read-back workflow ('calls SetVariableBool, then reads it back'), which tells the agent the write is verified and how. It omits permission requirements, but adds real value beyond structured fields.

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 covering the operation and one returns line, front-loaded with the action. Efficient, though the inline returns object is slightly long; it earns its place since no output schema exists.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the operational flow and the return contract (set/verified/value_read_back), which is exactly the missing piece. Only minor gaps remain, such as a note on which component/owner resolution failures look like.

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%, so actor_name, variable_name, and value are all documented in the schema (including the 'override is added locally if needed' note). The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Sets a bool override parameter on a spawned Niagara component') and is immediately distinguishable from the many sibling variants (set_niagara_component_int, _float, _vector, etc.). An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 implied by the name and by the note that it resolves the component on the owner actor, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like set_niagara_user_parameter or the other typed component setters, and no stated prerequisites.

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