set_niagara_system_fixed_bounds

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it explains the resolution of the component on the owner actor and the write-then-read-back sequence, and it enumerates the return fields including bounds_valid and read-back bounds.

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 operation, then mechanism, then return shape. Slightly dense and the double-space/'Returns:' block is a bit raw, but every sentence carries information an agent needs, especially since no output schema exists.

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, but the description supplies the return shape (applied, bounds_valid, min/max read-back) and the component-resolution behavior, so an agent can call and interpret results. Missing only explicit prerequisite/permission notes 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 min, max, and actor_name with units and format. The description restates 'local-space bounds' but adds no further syntax or constraint detail, so the 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 fixed local-space bounds on a spawned Niagara component'), naming the exact API called (SetSystemFixedBounds). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling bounds tools like set_niagara_emitter_bounds and set_niagara_system_properties.

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 explains the mechanical steps but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never names an alternative (e.g. emitter-level bounds). The agent must infer applicability from 'spawned Niagara component' alone.

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