add_niagara_node_pin

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, or failure modes (e.g., if the pin already exists or the node type is incompatible). It only states the action without behavioral details.

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: a one-line summary, a brief usage paragraph, and an Args section. It is front-loaded and every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 the tool has 8 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all parameters and the core functionality. It lacks return value details but the output schema exists. The description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 the description provides all parameter meanings. It explains pin_type with examples ('float, vec3, color, etc.'), direction as 'input' or 'output', and the three node identification methods. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 verb 'add', the resource 'typed dynamic pin', and the context 'scratch pad graph'. It specifies that it works with Custom HLSL, Map Get, Map Set, or any node inheriting from UNiagaraNodeWithDynamicPins, distinguishing it from more specific sibling tools like add_niagara_map_get_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 explains when to use the tool (to add a pin to dynamic nodes) and how to identify the target node via exactly one of node_class, node_index, or node_id. It lists required and optional parameters but does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives.

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