add_niagara_script_parameter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses naming conventions (input names become 'Module.<name>') and the direction default, but does not cover side effects, permissions, or constraints on parameter names/types beyond the type registry reference.

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 clear paragraphs and a bullet list for arguments. It is concise with no redundant information, and the action is front-loaded.

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 main functionality but omits explanations for three optional parameters. With an output schema present, return values are not needed, but the missing parameter docs reduce completeness for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It explains 'name', 'type', and 'direction' but does not mention 'module_name', 'script_path', or 'system_path', which are optional but crucial for context. The description is incomplete for half the parameters.

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 tool name and description clearly state that it adds an input or output parameter to a Niagara script. It specifies the action (adds an input/output parameter) and the resource (Niagara script), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remove_niagara_script_parameter' and 'rename_niagara_script_parameter'.

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 gives context on when to use 'output' for dynamic inputs and references 'list_niagara_parameter_types' for valid types. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, such as when to use 'add_niagara_user_parameter' or 'set_niagara_module_input'.

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