clear_niagara_module_input

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing side effects. It details the entire process: finding the override pin, breaking connections, removing orphan nodes, and removing the pin from the ParameterMapSet. It also references the internal engine function, leaving no behavioral ambiguity.

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: a concise one-line purpose, followed by a detailed but clear step-by-step explanation, then an important usage note on nested paths, and a reference to internal code. It could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds value and it is not verbose.

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?

While the behavioral details are thorough, the description omits descriptions for 4 out of 5 parameters, which is a significant gap for a tool with 5 required inputs. The presence of an output schema (not shown) might explain return values, but the parameter documentation gap reduces completeness. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The input schema has 5 required parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description only explains input_name in detail with a nested path example. The other four parameters (system_path, emitter_name, module_name, script_usage) are not mentioned, leaving the user to infer their meaning. This is insufficient compensation 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 verb 'reset' and the resource 'module input', and explicitly equates it to the UI action 'Reset to Default'. This distinguishes it from siblings like set_niagara_module_input and set_niagara_dynamic_input, which modify instead of resetting.

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 provides clear context by explaining the internal steps and supporting nested path syntax, which helps the user understand how to use it precisely. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, though the purpose is evident from the detailed behavioral description.

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