add_niagara_module

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the action and parameters but lacks behavioral details such as side effects (e.g., asset modification) or required permissions. The agent is left to infer that this modifies the emitter.

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 with a purpose sentence followed by parameter list. It is concise and front-loaded, though the parameter descriptions could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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 parameters comprehensively and the presence of an output schema (not shown) reduces the need to explain return values. However, it could mention what happens after addition (e.g., if the asset is auto-saved) for fuller context.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description includes a detailed Args section with examples for module_path and valid enum values for script_usage. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 module to an emitter's script usage stack.' It uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('module') with context, and distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_niagara_module and reorder_niagara_module.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description focuses on parameters but does not mention when-not-to-use or provide context about prerequisites or preferences.

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