niagara_apply_system_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the settings are 'safe' and mentions warmup and fixed bounds, but it does not disclose that this mutates the system, whether existing settings are overwritten, what save does, or whether the operation is reversible. The KB link may help, but the description itself is thin.

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 compact: two sentences plus a KB reference and an example call. The main purpose is front-loaded and the example is directly useful. It loses one point because the 'safe' wording is vague and the KB link is not self-explanatory, but there is 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 mutation tool with six parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, usage guidance, and behavioral detail; the presence of an output schema does not compensate for selection ambiguity among sibling Niagara tools. The KB reference is a useful pointer but not embedded guidance.

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. It only maps 'warmup and fixed bounds' to the warmup/fixed-bounds parameters and shows system_path in the example. It does not explain warmup_time vs warmup_tick_count, the meaning of the fixed-bounds arrays, or the save parameter's effect.

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 names a specific action (apply) on a clear resource (safe Niagara System-level settings) and lists example setting categories (warmup, fixed bounds). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as niagara_set_fixed_bounds, but the broad 'system-level settings' phrasing conveys the general scope.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives like niagara_set_fixed_bounds or niagara_profile_system, nor does it state whether this tool should be preferred for applying multiple settings at once. The KB link and example show invocation but not selection criteria.

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