set_niagara_emitter_template_description

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuine behavior the annotations don't: the asset is saved as part of the call, a failed save surfaces as a false success/save flag, and an empty string clears the text. Minor wobble: it says 'returns success false' while the declared return fields are 'applied'/'saved'/'save_error', so the failure signaling isn't stated consistently.

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 scope constraint and the save side effect in the first sentence, and the return shape is compact. Slight redundancy between the prose summary and the explicit Returns block, plus the inconsistent 'success false' phrasing, keeps it from being maximally tight.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the save-failure path, so the agent knows what comes back. The only gap is the mismatch between the prose 'success false' and the listed 'applied'/'saved'/'save_error' fields, which leaves failure interpretation slightly ambiguous.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the empty-string-clears semantics already present in the schema's 'description' property and adds no new syntax or format guidance for either parameter.

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 ('Set the TemplateAssetDescription text of a standalone Niagara Emitter asset') and immediately scopes it against the look-alike case ('not an emitter inside a system'). An agent can distinguish this from the many other Niagara set_* tools without opening a 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?

The parenthetical exclusion ('not an emitter inside a system') tells the agent when this tool does not apply, which is real routing guidance in a crowded Niagara toolset. It does not name a specific alternative tool for the in-system case, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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