add_niagara_custom_hlsl_input

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the pin's name is usable inside HLSL source, but does not explain side effects, prerequisites (e.g., scratch pad module must be open or exist), error conditions, or whether the modification is immediately applied.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main action. The list of types is useful but slightly verbose. No unnecessary words, but could be more efficient.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the result of adding the pin, whether it requires recompilation, or how it appears in the HLSL editor. Prerequisites and error handling are missing.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It lists types but does not explain key parameters like 'system_path' or 'module_name' beyond their names. The 'pin_type' default is mentioned but not its meaning. The description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 action 'Add', the resource 'typed input pin', and the context 'scratch pad module's Custom HLSL node'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_niagara_custom_hlsl_output, which adds an output pin.

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 lists supported types and mentions that the pin's name is usable inside HLSL source, implying usage context. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when to add an output pin or other node modifications.

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