set_niagara_component_int

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

Annotations declare the write/unsafe profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so the safety burden is largely carried. The description adds real value beyond them: it explains that the component is resolved on the owner actor and that the value is written then read back for verification, which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the mechanics and an inline Returns breakdown; every sentence carries information. The Returns block, though unconventional inside the description, compensates for the absent output schema and is not wasted space.

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 annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (set, verified, value_read_back) that would otherwise be missing. It stops short of failure behavior (e.g., actor/variable not found), which is the only notable gap.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (including that the override is added locally if needed). The description adds only the 'int32' framing, not new per-parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 an int32 override parameter on a spawned Niagara component') and names the exact underlying calls (SetVariableInt/GetNiagaraVariableInt). The 'int32' qualifier cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling set_niagara_component_float/vector/bool setters without needing to open any 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 type-specific naming (use this for integer variables), but the description never states when to prefer it over set_niagara_user_parameter or the other typed component setters, nor any prerequisites. Adequate context, no explicit routing.

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