add_niagara_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a mutation (attaching a component) and mentions the native bridge, but does not disclose side effects such as the blueprint asset being modified, potential failures on invalid paths, or whether a recompile is mandatory. The follow-up compile hint implies some effect, but it is not explicit.

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?

The description is concise, with a clear purpose statement, usage guidance, a KB reference, and an example. It is front-loaded and well-structured, with no wasted words, though the example could be considered slightly verbose.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and zero schema parameter descriptions, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not explain parameter semantics, error conditions, prerequisites, or the nature of the output (despite an output schema existing). The workflow hints are helpful but incomplete for a mutation tool on a Blueprint.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only gives an example showing blueprint_name and niagara_system_path without explaining their formats or valid values. The component_name parameter is never mentioned. This is insufficient for a tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool attaches a NiagaraComponent to a Blueprint via the native bridge, and specifies it places an authored Niagara System on a generated gameplay actor. It is specific about the verb and resource, but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling add_component_to_blueprint, leaving some ambiguity in differentiation.

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 a concrete usage scenario ('Use this to place an authored Niagara System on a generated gameplay actor') and lists follow-up steps (compile, readback, viewport proof). It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions but provides clear context.

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