niagara_create_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the create action and the editor factory availability condition, but does not mention side effects such as saving to disk, behavior when an asset already exists, meaning of the overwrite parameter, or failure modes. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action, and the KB reference and example add practical value without redundancy. It could be slightly more informative, but it is not verbose and every line earns its place.

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?

With four parameters, no annotations, and many related sibling tools, this description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It lacks guidance on valid folder paths, overwrite behavior, prerequisites beyond factory availability, and how this creation relates to later emitter-adding steps. The KB reference helps but does not make the tool self-sufficient.

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 demonstrates system_name in an example. The parameters save, overwrite, and folder_path are not explained beyond their names, defaults, and types in the schema. This leaves an agent guessing about overwrite semantics and path conventions.

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 operation: 'Create an empty Niagara System asset'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the word 'empty' distinguishes it from emitter-adding tools. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling tools, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 prerequisite ('when the UE editor factory is available') and an example call, which implies the intended use case of creating a new system. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like niagara_add_empty_emitter or niagara_find_systems, nor when not to use it.

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