set_niagara_component_vec2

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds valuable context by describing the internal workflow: it resolves the component, calls SetVariableVec2, and verifies by reading back. However, it does not state what gets destroyed (override is added locally if needed per schema) or clarify the idempotency implications.

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the implementation detail and return shape. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding or use.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description provides the return structure and key behavioral steps. It is nearly complete, though it omits potential failure conditions or permission requirements that might be relevant given the destructive hint.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description adds that the override is added locally if needed (from the schema description for variable_name) and explains the read-back mechanism. With the schema already doing heavy lifting, a 4 reflects the moderate additional context.

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?

Specifies the exact verb (Sets), resource (Vec2/FVector2D override parameter), and target (a spawned Niagara component), and explains the internal resolution of the UNiagaraComponent on the owner actor. This distinguishes it precisely from siblings like set_niagara_component_vector or set_niagara_component_float.

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 implies usage (setting a Vec2 override parameter on a spawned Niagara component), which aligns with the 'set_niagara_component_*' family, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., set_niagara_user_parameter or set_niagara_component_vector for 3D vectors) or any prerequisites or exclusions.

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