niagara_set_spawn_rate

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'Add or update' without detailing side effects (e.g., whether the asset is saved, whether existing module is replaced, error behavior if emitter not found). No mention of persistence, permissions, or impact on other settings. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. The KB link and example are appended logically. It is concise with no fluff, though the example formatting is inline rather than clearly separated, which slightly reduces readability.

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 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain emitter selection (emitter_id vs emitter_name), save behavior, or return value (output schema exists but not described). The KB link is external and may not be accessible to the agent. Missing essential context for reliable invocation.

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 touches system_path and spawn_rate via the example; emitter_id, emitter_name, and save are not explained. The difference between emitter_id and emitter_name, and the role of save, remain unclear. The example provides minimal hint for required params only.

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 states a clear verb ('Add or update') and specific resource ('emitter SpawnRate module') with the value set ('particles-per-second'). It distinguishes from siblings like niagara_set_system_user_parameter by targeting the SpawnRate module specifically. The example further clarifies the intended use.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other Niagara tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The example shows a basic call but does not explain when this is the appropriate choice (e.g., when modifying spawn rate vs. other emitter settings). No mention of alternatives or conditions.

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