set_niagara_component_float

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses the component-resolution strategy, that SetVariableFloat is called then read back, and that a verification result (set/verified/value_read_back) is produced. It does not explain the destructiveHint=true implication (mutates component state) or undo-ability, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tight sentences followed by a compact return-shape declaration. Front-loaded with the action, no filler, every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by documenting the return shape, and it covers actor resolution and read-back verification. It omits any note on permissions, whether the override persists, or how failures surface, so it is not fully complete for a destructive mutation.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters including value, actor identifier, and variable name. The description only restates resolution semantics ('matched by internal name or editor label') already present in the schema, 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+resource: sets a float override on a spawned Niagara component, and names the underlying call (SetVariableFloat). The 'float' qualifier implicitly separates it from set_niagara_component_int/bool/vector siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the type routing.

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 context is implied ('on a spawned Niagara component', owner actor matched by name/label) but there is no explicit when-to-use versus set_niagara_user_parameter or the other typed component setters, and no stated prerequisites. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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