add_niagara_custom_hlsl_output

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses mutation (adds pin) but fails to mention idempotency, error states (e.g., duplicate pin), or impact on existing node structure. Lacks behavioral depth.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant text. Could be improved by front-loading key details like 'typed output' but overall 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?

Description is bare given sibling diversity and lack of annotations. Does not explain output schema, prerequisites (e.g., existing scratch pad module), or relation to other custom HLSL operations. Incomplete.

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 explain parameters. Only 'typed output pin' hints at pin_name and pin_type, but system_path and module_name are unexplained. Insufficient for a 4-param tool.

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 a typed output pin' to a 'scratch pad module's Custom HLSL node'. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_niagara_custom_hlsl_input (adds input) and add_niagara_node_pin (general 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 implies usage context (adding output pin to custom HLSL node) but gives no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives. Slight implicit guidance from name but insufficient.

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