add_niagara_map_get_pin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the additive operation but does not disclose whether it is destructive, if it requires specific permissions, or the side effects (e.g., modifying the graph). The lack of behavioral context is a gap.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear one-sentence purpose and then providing detailed context. The Args section adds necessary detail but could be slightly more concise by integrating into the main text. 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?

The description covers the purpose and parameters adequately. However, given the complexity of the tool (4 params, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but completeness is still moderate.

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 compensates well by explaining each parameter in the Args section, including examples for parameter_name and a list of types for parameter_type. It adds meaning beyond the raw 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 a typed output pin to the first ParameterMapGet node') and provides concrete context about how it mirrors the editor's '+' button and naming convention. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_niagara_map_set_pin or add_niagara_node_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 by describing the tool's operation and parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., add_niagara_map_set_pin for set pins, or add_niagara_node_pin for generic pins). No when-not conditions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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