set_niagara_module_enabled

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

Annotations already cover readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is structured. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: it discloses that the operation persists the change via the returned 'saved' flag and 'save_error' field, revealing implicit save-on-success behavior. It stops short of explaining failure/permission scenarios.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one clean sentence, followed by an inline return-shape block. The return block is somewhat dense but justified since no output schema exists. No filler.

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 5-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return contract (including previous_enabled and save_error) that the schema does not. Annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries all parameters, so almost everything an agent needs is present; only failure/permission behavior is left unstated.

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 all five parameters (system_path, emitter_name, module_name, enabled, script_group) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only implied context via 'spawn or update graph' mapping loosely to script_group; no new syntax or format detail. 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 precise verb+resource: 'Enable or disable a UNiagaraNodeFunctionCall module in a Niagara emitter's spawn or update graph.' This distinguishes it from close siblings like set_niagara_emitter_enabled (toggles the whole emitter) and set_niagara_module_input (changes inputs). An agent can select it 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 description gives implied usage (toggling a module's enabled state in a graph) but never states when to prefer this over alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., asset must be loaded, emitter must exist). No exclusions or alternative routing are offered, leaving context to inference.

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