add_niagara_emitter

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the main action but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the system in-place, permissions needed, error scenarios, or what 'add' entails beyond the parameter choice).

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?

Description is concise with 4 sentences; first sentence states purpose, second explains key choice, then Args list. No redundant words, front-loaded with key purpose.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Description covers purpose, parameters, and the main choice. However, given the complexity of Niagara systems, could be more explicit about what 'add' means (e.g., does it load asset, compile, immediate effect?). Still mostly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by listing and explaining each parameter (system_path, emitter_path, emitter_name, template) and clarifying that emitter_path and template are alternatives. Adds meaning beyond schema types.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (Add) and resource (emitter to Niagara System). It distinguishes from siblings like remove_niagara_emitter and duplicate_niagara_emitter, and explains two methods (emitter_path or template).

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?

Description implies usage by stating the two alternatives (emitter_path vs template) but does not explicitly say when to use one over the other or when not to use this tool. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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